A Quick Summary of Reality Regarding Illegal Immigrants

It's really too bad.  So many criticize this administration over the immigration situation as if the problem began in January of 2017.  And all the usual suspects in the Democratic Party, such as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, were in office prior to Trump even running for the Republican nomination.  We know that in Schumer's case, he actually supported many of the policies now pushed by Trump.  And like them, Dem voters, such as Dan Trabue, did nothing to criticize Barack Obama for his failure to resolve the issue.  They made no arguments against his detention of immigrants.  I know this is true as I have recently reviewed all of Dan's blog posts from a few months before Obama took office and on throughout his two terms and there is next to nothing at all in the way of criticism for ANYTHING Obama did...despite Dan insisting he calls out his own when they do wrong. 

But then, Dan's a known liar.

Anyway,

So much of what people like Dan...well...actually...I'm pretty much referring to Dan with what will come in this post, though much of it is true of most on the left with regard to the immigration issue...so much of what Dan expects is actually in place already.  We welcome immigrants from all over the world to the tune of about 1million per year...600K of which are change of status personnel.  And despite Trump's reduction in the number of refugees admitted, we still took in over 20K in fiscal year 2018, but the main reason for the drop in numbers is due to the backlog with which our people are already dealing.

That backlog is the result of the screening and vetting that must take place before affirming the claimant is legitimate and entitled to receive our protection.  When the system is overwhelmed...which it is...that simply causes more of a backlog.  It can't be helped what happens in other countries that forces people to flee for their lives.  It's a true tragedy for which most people...regardless of political leanings...feel deep sadness and empathy.  Unfortunately, regardless of how badly we might feel for all those suffering world wide, there are limits to what we can do about it. 

And therein lies much of the dispute between people like me and the stupid...I mean, Dan.  Dan pays lip service to concepts like how many we can actually let in and help, but he has no solid suggestion for just where the cut off should be.  I'm more than happy to simply stop it all until we can catch up, because we're doing no one any good letting the crowd awaiting processing to grow and grow.  We need both more people doing the job and fewer people trying to get in.  Perhaps Dan can go and volunteer at one of the agencies who do the processing.  He can clean toilets in order to free up those who know what they're doing. 

But all this is just those who apply for asylum legally, through the proper legal channels every step of the way.  There are also those who simply cross our borders illegally and then when caught, they assume the guise of refugee seeking asylum.  There is no justifiable expectation that they should be treated exactly as are those who did things by the numbers.  Dan sees no difference between them and the legal applicants.  Dan is stupid.  Legally, logically and practically, these border jumpers are simply illegal immigrants and should be regarded as such, dealt with separately from all those that sought entry according to the law. 

Then there are the total frauds.  There are far more than Dan is honest enough to admit, because to Dan, all those who want to come in should be believed no matter what their story is.  But just as we know that there are far more false rape claims that idiots like Dan is willing to admit, illegal immigrants will lie as well.  How many, Dan asks?  Doesn't matter.  What matters is that there are quite enough to justify tightening up enforcement of all laws related to immigration and border protection.  The reason is simple, though Dan is too simple to get it through it pointy head.  Bad actors come to us from other countries...as if we don't have enough of our own...and they do bad things in this country.  The Remembrance Project is an organization that documents cases of Americans killed...some murdered, some victims of things like drunk driving...by illegal immigrants.  Other sources illustrate that crime...particularly violent crime...and incarceration rates are disproportionately greater among illegal immigrants.  To pretend there is no documentation for this fact is stupidly false and only an idiot would suggest such a thing...particularly one who prefers to regard all immigrants as within their rights to come and go as they please without regard the laws of the land.  This is like suggesting that total strangers have the right to enter your home whenever they want, eat your food and use your stuff.  But that's how stupid lefties are.

The intelligent people know that immigration law is meant to serve the country into which the immigrant wishes to enter.  That country's main concern is the welfare of its own people, not that of the foreigner.  No twisting of Scripture can change that, because nothing in Scripture disputes it in the least.  But people like Dan, for whom truth and honesty is no more than a punchline, will do that twisting as if it's OK to risk the lives of one's fellow citizens in order to posture as a caring human being. 

*Sigh*  There are so many angles to the immigration issue that is only complicated by people like Dan and the Democrats he supports.  There is no way to correct the many problems without first establishing that the laws must be obeyed and that our borders must be respected.  Since it's asking too much to expect those conned by activists to respect our borders, we are actually forced into erecting a wall.  Doing so will solve many of the problems we face, including slowing the backlog.  A proper wall that inhibits the ability to cross will act as a deterrent, as word spreads that there is no "easy" way in because of it.  Fewer will cross illegally confident that they can escape detection long enough for the next idiot Democrat to suggest amnesty. 

The real cure, of course, is the countries from which these people come.  More jobs, less violence and corruption results in fewer refugees and asylum seekers.   But that's a different post for a different day.  Dan and the Dems have even fewer logical, practical or worthy suggestions for those issues. 

Futility

It's incredibly sad that we can't engage in civil discourse any longer in our nation.  At least not on-line.  People hide behind the fact that they aren't face-to-face, often not even in the same state or country, and equally as often not even using their real names (mostly on the blogs, but in other comments, too, such as those following internet news stories).  As such, too many act rudely.  They speak to others in a manner they never would face-to-face, supposing those on the other end of their incivility actually believe them to be tough guys, or courageous orators or whatever.

On the blogs, we see other bad behaviors, most notably a level of fascism that truly is becoming S.O.P. for those on the left.  Just as they are in universities, in politics and in the media, these "progressives" (and liberals, socialists, marxists...so hard to know one from the other anymore, so much do they resemble each other) seek to dictate how opponents speak in order to express themselves.  They delete and ban those who do not toe their constantly moving line...moving that line whenever it is convenient for the "progressive" to have it move. 

The worse of this breed of malcontent I've encountered is our own Dan Trabue, self-styled "progressive" "Christian". (I had to surround each word with quotes separately due to the fact that each word is questionable on its own in describing this guy.)  One can easily look for one's self to see that what I say is true, with one caveat:  he's deleted so much from his comments sections of that which was posted by ideological opponents that one cannot fully experience what a lying coward he really is.  Now, when I use that term..."lying coward"...I do not use it as a mere ad hominem.  His cowardice is manifest in the fact that he does indeed delete that which exposes the flaws in his positions and character.  His deceit manifests in how he describes what he has deleted if he deigns to post any bit of it in order to respond to increase his debate advantage.

That, too, is a trait of the left and Danny-boy.  Their tactics are to gain advantage while pretending to put forth truth.  Truth is always secondary because they don't believe such a thing exists as truth, but only the mysterious "MY TRUTH"...which changes from lefty to lefty as well as from one moment to the next depending on how the debate is going.  OR, they...in this case, Dan...will simply delete.

The worst part of this behavior is when he deletes that which is exactly what he demanded from his opponent.  In his most recent nonsensical post, wherein he once again disparages the president in the most shameful, unChristian manner...here comparing him to King Herod of the Christmas story...I stated the fact that many of those who seek asylum are lying about the reasons they give for seeking it.  Now, this isn't news to anyone who's paying attention.  But Dan demanded proof...actually demanding I provide some number or percentage of seekers who are lying.  I provided THREE links that speak to the point.  Each provided different information confirming that such abuses of the asylum system take place...with one coming from the USCIS, and another from an advocate for immigration.  I doubt he ever read any of the links I provided because for him the important thing is to deny the truth in favor of that which he supports or advocates.

Frankly, I don't believe for a second...not anymore at this point...that Dan cares about anything other than posturing as a caring person.  That is, if it was assumed by all who met him that he was a caring person, he would do very little to demonstrate it.  What Dan cares about, in addition to his posturing, is advancing a very leftist and unChristian ideology on the world, to whatever extent he can, under the guise of a caring Christian. 

But a real Christian doesn't advocate for that which is so incredibly harmful.  A real Christian doesn't pervert Scripture in order to push an agenda.  He doesn't lie about an opponent's position to support his own, nor does he lie about his own, for that matter.  On the issue that prompted this post, Dan lies about Trump's immigration policy, attributing the deaths of two children to that policy.  How is this a Christian act?  It's bad enough that Dan thinks our immigration laws are evil, but to actually imply (if not outright state) that it was the policies which are responsible for the deaths of these kids...or any other would-be immigrant who dies in the attempt to illegally cross our border...is a lie of the most egregious kind. 

Dan's position is basically this:  because some people who want to come here aren't allowed to enter on their terms, our immigration policy is evil.  Any attempt to counter this lunacy is met with vitriol, ultimatums and deletions.  Is this the behavior of someone who cares about the people truly fleeing danger?  No.  Is it the behavior of someone who's truly seeking solutions?  No.  And it's certainly not the behavior of a Christian. 

I've often been asked why I bother with this guy.  I've got to say that at this point he shows no redeeming values whatsoever.  His heresies and lies and support for sinful behaviors is pretty much without any cover these days.  It's out in the open for all to see.  Hypocrisy reigns supreme with him, as he lies constantly while going on and on about Trump being a liar, never once having criticized any Democrat for the many lies they spew as a matter of their party's platform.  It's sad.  It's pathetic.  He's a true reprobate given over to his sin nature.

I've said of myself that I'm here to persuade or be persuaded.  That's never changed.  To debate, to hold an opinion...both require evidence of some kind...evidence that can be presented to others for them to examine.  Only then can one persuade or be persuaded.  Dan demands evidence, but rejects what is given out of hand with no counter evidence to even hope that the opponent can be disabused of his position.  Dan offers no evidence for his side, yet expects the opponent to yield.  

It's like talking to a petulant child. 

He's still welcome to make his case here, if he ever finds a pair necessary to do so.  He won't.  He no longer tries.  It's amazing that I can post any comment at all at his blog.  That lack of cowardice he exhibits is telling.  I have to think that if I was as frightened to engage with one diametrically opposed, it would be a sign that perhaps my position is lacking in some way, if not totally wrong and contrary to truth and reality.  Dan doesn't care about truth and reality, though he uses the latter word often.  He only cares about what he wants truth and reality to be.  That's called LYING.

Watch That First Step...It's a Doozy!

I've been so busy with extra work days due to the holiday season, that I've barely time for much of anything.  But while I'm still mired in the peak season, there's so much going on about which I'd like to put forth my thoughts that I'm willing to risk a less than ideal quality of post to get at it.  I figure changes could be made or notions fleshed out in more detail in the comments section.

Right now, I wish to comment on the First Step Act of prison reform that at the moment, I'm not sure how far along the legislative process it has gone.  From what I've been able to read about it, I immediately see problems.  I'll begin with this:

"The mass incarceration epidemic in America is a stain on our society that must be eradicated.  Lives have been ruined, families torn apart and communities devastated."   -Hakeem Jeffries

"Epidemic"???  This foolish statement is at the heart of prison reform.  What reform is necessary has less to do with those incarcerated than with how prisons are run.  By this I mean that should one break the law, and the penalty for doing so is incarceration, there is no problem here whatsoever.  The "epidemic" is crime...NOT incarceration for having committed crimes.  It's absurd, yet to insist that lives are ruined and families torn apart...that's on the law-breaker!  NOT on the prison system, the court system or law enforcement.  This is how it works:

1.  The legislative branch of government (fed, state, local) determines which behaviors are prohibited under penalty of law.  Engage in one or more of those behaviors, and one has broken the law.

2.  Law enforcement seeks out law-breakers and arrests them.

3.  The courts decide of the charges against a defendant are legitimate and passes sentence.

4.  If the sentence is incarceration, jail or prison is the next stop.

Throughout this process, lives are ruined...namely, the victims of the lawbreaker.  The victims include not only those who were robbed, assaulted, murdered, etc., but the families of the lawbreaker (should the lawbreaker have one).  The families that are torn apart are not simply the families of the lawbreaker upon his incarceration, but also the families of his victims, should those victims be murdered or hospitalized...and in some cases, so traumatized that the families are essentially broken until such time as the direct victim of the lawbreaker can be healed.   And of course, communities are devastated by the commission of crimes against them by lawbreakers.  Indeed, there is a ripple effect upon communities, society and the culture from every crime committed.

But the focus is on those who have broken the law with this Act.  How is this just?  If one is jailed unjustly, what needs reform is either law enforcement or the courts or both.  Unjust arrest and sentencing is not a prison concern or issue.  And in her support of this Act, Michelle Malkin refers to her investigative reporting that dealt with the wrongly accused.  On that score, I believe prisons should facilitate any appeals by prisoners so as to rectify situations of wrongful convictions.  I've read elsewhere that not all prison officials are necessarily sympathetic, assuming that anyone who is sent to them must be guilty.  We know that isn't true 100% of the time.  But I don't think the Act is meant to address these types of cases.  So let's focus on actual lawbreakers.

It is said that credits for early release is part of the deal.  But why should there be any expected?  That is, crime comes with consequences...generally prison time based on the crime, the extent of which determined on case by case basis within predetermined parameters.  I don't necessarily oppose "time off for good behavior", as a show of remorse and works to prove it may be used to both keep behavior within prisons in check, as well as to lessen overcrowding.  But one must assume the full sentence will be served because justice demands it.  Prison is primarily punishment and if one can't do the time....

When breaking the law, the perpetrator has incurred a debt to society and prison is how he pays that debt.  It's a well known maxim.  But this Act, as has been the case with so many for so long, does not consider prison as punishment.  Indeed, many call themselves "correctional facilities".  OK.  Let's go with that for a moment.  I believe that when one finds one's self in prison for having broken a law, one is punished by the loss of one's freedom of movement and during his incarceration should reflect on his deeds and correct his own bad attitude, vowing never again to walk on the dark side.

But any effort to provide the means by which a felon will "rehab" and become a good citizen incurs more debt to society.  We each are provided with the means to acquire education from K through 12th grade.  We are provided that, in most cases, through the loving donations of the American taxpayer.  Additional education is paid for by the citizen or the citizen's parents.  Now, we have these scofflaws who are somehow entitled to more education???  Because they broke the law???  It is said by many that it is worth it because recidivism goes down when the scumbags are given training for the outside world.  But they had the same chance as everyone else to work hard (as hard as one's situation requires) to acquire that education and training for employment.  They chose otherwise and now we're supposed to pay for it while paying for the education and training of ourselves and/or our kids??  No way!

If training for the outside world is what they need, and they are willing to partake in training provided by the prison system, they can have their future earnings garnished to pay back that added burden to society.  It's only fair.  One joker insisted I provide data that shows that would work.  What idiocy!!  I'm not concerned with whether such data exists and don't care to research to find out.  I'm concerned with justice and there is none by breaking the law and expecting others to pay for your training while serving your punishment!!  You owe society, not the other way around!

The First Step Act speaks to providing such training.  It also seeks to provide for therapies for addictions and mental health.  So really, if you have issues, or if you just can't kick that opioid addiction, rob a liquor store and your troubles are over!!  All of this stuff should be at the cost of the felon, not the public. 

Another issue is this 500 mile radius rule, which provides easier access for family members.  All in all, I don't have a problem with this in theory, but again, there are problems attached.  The first is, boo-freakin'-hoo.  It's too bad your family is so far away.  Whose fault is that?  The judge?  The prison?  Your family?  No.  It's the fault of the convict for having broken the law.  So if it's a burden on the family, why is that our problem?

What's more, what of those high crime areas?  Metropolitan areas have more crime.  How can convicts be guaranteed they'll be close to family if so many from the same cities are locked up?  What do we do?  Build more prisons so that no one is too far from those who care to visit?  I don't see that there's any way they'll be able to accommodate all prisoners.

Finally, there is the desire to reconsider sentencing with regard to non-violent crimes.  Fine.  But I don't want to find out that sentences are reduced to relieve overcrowding.  I don't care that lawbreakers have to sleep ten to a cell.  Don't break the law and one needn't worry about such things.  But again, that's not a prison issue.  It's a court issue and a legislative issue.  Change the law, if sentences are deemed too long.  But the punishment must fit the crime, and that means not lessening the punishment just as it means don't overdo it.

The real problem of course isn't an "epidemic" of incarcerations.  It isn't that minorities are locked up disproportionately.  It isn't that prison needs to be fair, if by fair one means, no suffering.  The problem is moral decay which leads to more crime for which people are arrested and locked up.  But how do we solve that?  It's that sin nature thing.  Perhaps we should just teach people not to break the law (as if we haven't been doing that).  That's how we're supposed to solve the "rape epidemic", so it should work equally well here.

Psst! Don't Tell Anyone, But I Love Your Work.

Have you ever seen the artwork of Adolf Hitler?  The dude was very talented!  Many of his works are quite suitable for hanging.  I'm serious.  He was a true artist. 

So obviously this means that I support all the murdering of Jews that took place by his command. 

I'm a big fan of the music of Elton John.  I don't have all his albums...in fact only a couple...but I think his stuff is really good (and his vocal range is right in my wheel house, so that's nice).

So obviously this means that I support the homosexual agenda.  Or, wait!  Maybe it's because I oppose the homosexual agenda that I must disavow any appreciation for Elton John music, Ellen DeGeneres comedy or Ian McKellen as Gandalf the Grey.  And I mustn't dare admit I've always enjoyed the acting ability of Kevin Spacey or else by doing so I'm admitting that I support sexual assault.

Does any of the above seem weird to you?  Are we allowed to admire the work of wicked people?  I don't mean their wicked acts, of course, but the way they do their jobs or craft? 

Apparently not.  And this is never more true than in the case of one Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of these here United States of America.  You see, anyone who voted for him supports adultery and sexual abuse and crudeness.   You didn't know that, did you?  It's true.  Ask any idiot...I mean, any leftist...same thing.  They'll tell you.  Nothing Trump has done as president matters.  To support his work as president means you're defending...well...whatever nasty thing they believe applies to the man.

The reality, though, is that Trump's biggest flaw is that he's not Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders or any of the GOP presidential hopefuls beaten by Trump in the primaries.  And it is just so super-duper easy to continue putting the focus on his adultery and sexual abuse (only unproven allegations, really) and crudeness, than to defend the policy proposals of one's preferred alternative.  Hey, I still think Ted Cruz was the best choice among the hundred and forty-two or so Republicans running (there's something like 687 Dems gearing up to try for 2020!), but I'm not going to pretend that Trump hasn't been doing far, far better than I ever thought he might or even might be capable of doing.

And that's all that matters at this point.  I still oppose adultery, sexual abuse and crudeness.  I oppose questionable business practices.  But there's been no real suggestions that as president Trump has been doing anything truly horrible.  Sure, some pantywaist idiots...I mean leftists...same thing...wet themselves over his...what is it up to now?...5000 "lies", and over the fact that he doesn't mince words or has no filter to smooth over his extemporaneous speech.  But that's just who he is and despite the fact that I would much prefer more class and less crass in my presidents, the dude is simply doing a really, really good job.  Perfect?  No.  But really, really good.  All who disagree are liars or not paying attention 

The Great Debate: Impotence in the Face of Tragedy, Part 2

1.  Bar sales to all violent criminals
2.  Assault weapons ban
3.  Semiautomatic gun ban
4.  High-capacity magazine ban
5.  Universal checks for gun buyers
6.  Universal checks for ammo buyers
7.  Bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider
8.  Bar sales to convicted stalkers
9.  Require gun licenses
10. Ammo purchase limit
11. Centralized record of gun sales
12. Report lost or stolen guns
13. 3-day waiting period
14. Gun purchase limit
15. Workplace weapons ban
16. School weapons ban
17. Guns that microstamp bullets
18. Require gun safes
19. Require safety training
20. Fingerprint gun owners

Let's pick up where we left off, with #11.  This is a gun registry.  To record gun sales, and have a "centralized" record is a registry.  Does this person suppose that government would have no access to this record?  And if government has access, how can this not be a registry by which government can also find gun owners for the purpose of confiscation?  Registration lists have led to gun confiscation in Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia and other countries.

 http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/kopel-catastrophic-consequences.htm

12.  This sounds good in theory, and any good gun owner would likely report a missing weapon out of a sense of responsibility.  But there are problems with making this a mandatory thing.   Let's say the gun owner isn't particularly zealous about training.  He owns a weapon but the novelty has faded and he simply is content to have it "just in case".  This is fine.  No reason he must feel obliged to meet anyone's standards for ownership other than his own.  If the gun is stolen and used in a crime, particularly a murder, he may not be aware that it is even missing.  How can one be mandated to report what he doesn't even realize has happened? 

Depending upon just how draconian his area might be with regard to gun control laws, the mere reporting could lead to charges against him, particularly if awareness of the missing weapon came after a crime was committed with his gun.  What's more, mandatory reporting is not likely to work very well without some kind of registering of one's weapons, which only burdens the law-abiding and only puts the law-abiding at risk of confiscation.

13.  This sounds good in theory.  The usual argument revolves around a "cooling off period" for those who are pissed now at someone and wants to kill them.  The idea that such a person would cool off and not feel as strongly about killing whomever pissed him off.  However, in three days, he also might be three times as pissed and simply more intent than ever to kill whomever pissed him off. 

But what about the victim of a stalker or murderer?  Why should that person have to wait three or more days to obtain a weapon to defend him/herself?  There are way too many stories of women who have been murdered by their husbands, boyfriends, ex-husband/boyfriend because they had to wait to buy a gun.  It's absurd and a clear infringement of one's right to bear arms.

A school shooter would have no problem waiting another three days to carry out his desire to shoot up a school.  A P-O'd former employee would have no problem waiting to shoot up his former workplace.  It's absurd to think a waiting period would make much difference.

Then there's the issue of suicides.  While I do not wish to see anyone take his/her own life, I'm afraid my concern for such people can't take precedence over my concern for people who wish to defend their lives.  If such a person is only seeking to take his/her own life, so be it.  If such a person is wishing to take the lives of others as well, such a person would likely have no problem waiting out the waiting period.

14.  This doesn't even sound good in theory.  Take the Vegas shooter.  Did he need all the weapons he brought with him, or could he have done the same damage with one or two and multiple magazines?  Guns are expensive.  One is not likely to find another purchasing too many at one time, or even over a period of a couple of months.  And whatever limit one faces, one can simply wait out whatever period is in place and then buy again until the desired amount is acquired.  If the limit is on total quantity one can possess, that would require a registry which is immoral and puts the law-abiding at risk.  One can only shoot one gun at any given moment, so the owner of multiple weapons is no more dangerous than the own of one with multiple magazines or reload capability.

15.  Any employer who wishes to ban weapons from his private property (his business) is free to do so.  Any employee who wishes to risk his own life by abiding his employer's ban is free to do so.   Any employee who wishes to risk his position by ignoring his employer's ban is free to do so.  Anyone who thinks the government can dictate such a mandate upon the private sector is no American, as this is clearly and plainly unconstitutional.  Anyone who thinks this will protect employees from those who wish to enter to shoot up the place is an idiot.

16.  We've seen too often the idiocy of this suggestion and indeed, this series of posts is about protecting students.  "Gun free zones" in schools, as in other places, do not work.  Never have and never will.  Only abject idiots continue to push this stupidity.

17.  I'll just leave this to and expert who will certainly be assailed for appearing in an NRA-related site.  Or, just know this is a really stupid idea that won't protect anybody from murderers.

18.  Gun safes are a good idea for those who believe they have a purpose in their own lives.  For example, if one doesn't trust one's friends or family members to respect the deadly potential of a firearm, one might want to lock up their guns.  But for those who believe that locking up one's weapons puts one's own life at risk should that weapon be needed, they should not be told their situation is of no significance.  If the buffoon who suggested this wishes to try getting his assailant to wait while he retrieves his weapon from the safe, good luck to him with that.  This same advice goes to those who like the idea of trigger locks (try fumbling around with that while your daughter is getting raped!), or keeping the weapon unloaded.  All the best to you.

19.  Really.   Mandating just about anything regarding guns is a form of infringement.  As this piece suggests, imagine other rights having training mandates imposed in order to engage in those rights.  And still, how does it protect anyone?  This same article goes on to express that there is no data (as of its writing) that proves a connection between training and accidents, but shows that accidents have been falling.  No doubt they'll ebb and flow up and down over time, but still, is it a matter of training, not enough training, poor training, poor listening and learning?  Responsible gun owners train.  They don't need to be told.  The rest won't train more than any mandate requires and likely not put their total hearts into it if they don't wish to abide the mandates in the first place.  Another impotent suggestion.

20.  This is for registry purposes and thus is unconstitutional as well as completely stupid.  The 2nd Amendment is to protect the people from government, and idiots who suggest this type of law give the fox power over the hen house.  It's imbecilic.

The biggest problem with the lot of these 20 suggestions is that it focuses on the laws regulating the law-abiding, assuming that among them are those who take up arms for criminal purposes.  Rational people enact laws and regulations that impede the ability of the criminal...not the law-abiding.  If you wish to protect the innocent, you don't handcuff the innocent.  You leave their liberty intact while doing all possible to confound the criminal.  None of these suggestions fall under any heading of "common sense" suggestions because the focus is in the wrong direction. 

This list came from a dolt who claims that his "real" plan involved these suggestions and were backed by studies and such that bear out his claim.  But as he's under strict limitations here, and is too cowardly to open up his own blog for serious discussion under his own goof terms means that we'll never know his "plan".  I've no doubt it would be time we'd be sorry to have lost from our limited lives were we to peruse it. 

The Great Debate: Impotence in the Face of Tragedy

We now come to the end of this series offering solutions to the problem of school shootings.  At least for the time being.  Circumstances of one kind or another may prompt more, but for now, this is it.

For this one, I want to look at things that won't work and things that don't work.  Much of what follows has been offered by one particular low intellect individual who hasn't any actual solutions of any kind.  He does have bumper sticker slogans, one of which is particularly idiotic:

"Simple rule: the more guns, the more gun deaths.  Start there on any plan, for it to be rational and workable. Doesn’t mean banning everything. It dies (sic) mean caring for everybody."

But this is merely simple-minded.  He bases this nonsense on alleged studies that allegedly bear this out.  Basically, this dude hasn't the brain capacity to think beyond a superficial level, being that he's simple-minded, posting this kind of drivel because he believes it backs his preconceived notions...notions he hasn't a clue regarding how they came to exist in his pointy head.  I guess he's happy to have something in there besides space.

What his "study" doesn't really answer, is the question of which came first...the more guns part or the more gun deaths part.  Never mind the fact that where there are more automobiles, there are more automobile fatalities.  Or where there are more bathtubs, there are more slips and fall fatalities.  Or where there are more people like this guy, there are more really, really stupid things said as if they were (and this is the funny part) intelligent.  By the reasoning of this guy, if Homer shoots somebody, Gomer down the street might feel having a gun for protection is a good idea.  If after Gomer buys the gun, Homer shoots another guy, did Gomer's purchase have anything to do with the increase in shootings?  I don't think so.  So it could be that the reverse of that equation...more gun deaths equal more guns...is just as likely, if not more so.

More importantly, this poop-for-brains platitude doesn't take into account where the gun deaths are occurring...as if it matters not.  But in rural areas, gun ownership is generally higher percentage-wise than cities with strict gun-control laws...like Chicago...and there isn't a whole lot of gun violence compared to Chicago.  It's not the guns.  It's never the guns.  There's nothing at all rational about this simple-minded rule.  Worse, it does nothing to truly demonstrate caring, because it's so meaningless and there's no way to apply it so that it gives the results this incompetent fool thinks it will. 

Finally as regards this useless crap, "it doesn't mean banning everything".  There is nothing that can be banned that would do much to address the real problem, which is not guns, types of guns or how many exist among law-abiding people.  This pants-wetter thinks he can know what somebody he doesn't know nor knows about needs for protection.  He certainly doesn't have the brain power for far less, so there's no way he's competent enough to judge for anyone else.  But let's move on to what he pretends is a plan.  While this list is likely not dedicated to school safety per se, it's so stupid I had to include it:

1.  Bar sales to all violent criminals
2.  Assault weapons ban
3.  Semiautomatic gun ban
4.  High-capacity magazine ban
5.  Universal checks for gun buyers
6.  Universal checks for ammo buyers
7.  Bar sales to people deemed dangerous by mental health provider
8.  Bar sales to convicted stalkers
9.  Require gun licenses
10. Ammo purchase limit
11. Centralized record of gun sales
12. Report lost or stolen guns
13. 3-day waiting period
14. Gun purchase limit
15. Workplace weapons ban
16. School weapons ban
17. Guns that microstamp bullets
18. Require gun safes
19. Require safety training
20. Fingerprint gun owners

To begin with, this insipid suggestion fails to account for the fact that almost all of these points of his "plan" are already in play most everywhere in the country to one degree or another.  So, to pretend one is suggesting solutions by doing what is already being done pretty much means that the job is finished and, all students everywhere in every school are now perfectly safe and school shootings will never again take place in the United States of America from now until time eternal.    But let's go through them, as I enjoy showing this dude what he can't see because his head's up his backside:

1.  It is already illegal for violent criminals to purchase a gun.  But hey, dude...try denying one criminal from buying from another.  I'm sure that'll work out just fine.  

2.  This was tried and failed.   What's more, rifles the stupid refers to as "assault rifles" aren't used all that often for crimes of any kind.  The most recent serious school shooting involved the use of a shotgun and a revolver...two guns that are not normally on a gun-grabber's list of guns to grab.  What's more, it didn't matter to the dead.

3.  See point #2.  The stupid in this one is that what the stupid refers to as "assault rifles" are simply semi-automatic weapons, which I believe comprise the most popular weapons, whether rifle or handgun.  So this is really a blatant gun grab considering how many guns would be denied the law-abiding public.  It's also a case of stupid people dictating to others what they need based on the baseless criteria of the stupid, not those who know their own situations and the risks they face.

4.  A worthless proposition.  There is no correlation between magazine size and how many are killed.  What matters is aim.  But assuming one's aim is perfect, there is still no difference in how many can be hit.  The time it takes to drop and empty 10 round mag and replace it with another is tiny and presents no legitimate opportunity to interfere unless one is pretty much right next to the shooter.  Here are two links to debunk the notion that magazine size matters.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/the-high-capacity-magazine-myth/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU

In self-defense, stopping a person with a gun requires some skill.  Cops in gun battles fire far more shots that miss than those that hit.  Having more ammo at the ready in a larger mag makes sense, particularly with handguns, as carrying extra mags is inconvenient.  What's more, stopping that assailant might take several hits.  To have to reload could mean one's life.  And for the purposes of protecting students or others, it makes no difference at all how many rounds a magazine carries if the purpose is to kill as many as possible.  The shooter will likely have extras.

5 & 6.  This sounds good even to a lot of pro-gun people.  But the reality is that it, too, will make little to no difference and thus save no one.  What's the point?  To deny criminals and the insane, both of whom are already restricted.  What's more, the criminal who attempts to purchase a gun and goes through a check will be arrested.  They simply won't submit to a check in the first place.  A crazy person or suicidal person might, but if there is no record of one's insanity or suicidal tendency, the nut will pass the check. 

7.  Already in place pretty much everywhere.  The problem, though, is reporting and detecting early enough to do something about it.  Thus, it is no solution.

8.  Already in place pretty much everywhere.

9.  Total infringement on the right to bear arms for self-defense.  What's more, those who license their weapons are not likely to be those who use them for criminal acts.  In the meantime, criminals won't get licensed.

10.  This is goofy.  To limit ammo purchases severely inhibits one's ability to practice and it's another way to prevent the law-abiding from protecting themselves as THEY see fit, which is their right.  More importantly, it can be ignored and side-stepped by a potential mass murderer by simply buying a little at a time, or having another buy on the shooter's behalf.  But what would that limit be?  If it is less than, say 1000, it hurts the law-abiding, while doing nothing to stop the mass shooter, who usually doesn't fire that many rounds before the incident has come to an end.  I think the Las Vegas shooter might have fired off quite a bit, but he's an anomaly among incidents that are especially rare in the first place.

11.  This is the most stupid.  Ask any Jew who was around in 1930s Germany.  This is a call for a registry, which leads to confiscation.  Who puts in charge of storing such information the very entity the 2nd Amendment was meant to deny such controls?  It's amazing how idiotic this one is.

I'm going to leave it there for now.  The rest will follow.  If possible, feel free to address any of the 11+ points made thus far.

Notice to Readers

It is with great regret that due to the childish and petulant antics of a single immature and low-intellect troll names feodor, I have elected to engage comment moderation.  Using the control I have as administrator of this blog, I feel it best for all to deny him the ability to engage in his disruptive behavior.

feo has from his first visit been nothing more than a foul stench, bringing nothing to the table but arrogance, condescension, falsehood, hatefulness and profanity.   He projects his own faults and character flaws onto his discourse opponents, accusing them of all manner of sin when his positions are exposed for the baseless and flawed corruptions they are.  When it is clear his inability to mount a cogent argument against more logical, reasoned and fact-based positions leaves him exposed and facing his own inadequacies, and all attempts to present himself as the intellect his failure proved he isn't grates his sensibilities, he turns to attack the person who bested him so easily.  He's done this not only to those who've engaged him here, but those cited for support of the moral and logical positions he opposes.  He assumes a right to dictate as if this blog is his or as if he has some moral authority.   I have been accused of all manner of sin, such a racism and hate, without the slightest evidence or argument in support of the contention.

Yet for all his lies about me, I've continued to hope for civil discourse and some semblance of a cogent description of his opinions and ideas about whatever topic is being discussed.  Even as I have taken to deleting his comments due to repeated failures to act like the Christian he hasn't come close to proving he truly is, he still has been given the means to atone for his childishness, but like the infant he is, he prefers petulant stubbornness and psychotic antics.

So I feel I have no choice but to enable comment moderation until he finds it within his dark and unholy heart to at least pretend he knows what being a Christian is all about and complies with the terms under which he will always remain.

At present, there is a problem with this plan over which I have no control.  It is a technical glitch with Blogger, and for the time being, it may be difficult to post comments for the time being.  Supposedly Blogger is on the case, but if too much time goes by without the problem being resolved, I may switch to Wordpress or some other platform.  I actually have a Wordpress presence, though I haven't been using it at all.

It's too bad that such immaturity has come to this.  It's too bad that my openness and welcome has been so crudely abused.  I don't like deleting comments.  I prefer to let those with low character expose themselves for all to see, focusing on whatever point they choose to make if they have the capacity for doing so.  My rules have always been simple enough for even this simple-minded fool to understand and abide.  Now all must pay the price...another consequence I've always disliked, but with limited options, this is the result. 

Your patience is appreciated.

The Great Debate: Solutions Part 4

I'm almost done with this series.  Already I've provided sound solutions to the problem of protecting our students in schools.  This post will provide several more workable and practical ideas.

To begin, it can't be stressed enough that the number one easiest solution to employ is the rejection of the "gun free zone" policy in schools.  This is without a doubt the most idiotic policy for protecting students in schools, or patrons in, say, theaters showing Batman movies.  It is an invitation, not a prohibition.  The vast majority of publicized mass shootings occurred in "gun free zones", and frankly, that should include towns and cities with the strictest gun control laws...which, by the way, are actually law-abiding people control laws.  As most schools in the nation operate under this nonsensical policy, there is no one to defend students when the shooting starts.

Thus, to allow those school staff members who would be willing, particularly those who are already licensed gun owners with concealed carry permits (should be automatically every law-abiding American), armed personnel is logical, reasonable and common sense policy.  There are schools in the country that have already adopted this policy.  No problems reported so far.

There are two main objections to this idea which are easily resolved:

1.  This would be on a volunteer basis, so no one would be forced to carry a weapon.

2.  Law-abiding gun owners, most of whom already have some training and practice with some regularity, do not abuse their liberty to bear arms.  Few who are convicted of crimes involving guns are NRA members.

Teachers are already concerned with the safety of their charges, with teachers among the dead often  having given their lives protecting their students against attacks.  For most of them, had they been armed and firing back rather than simply blocking bullets from hitting students, death tolls would have been drastically reduced.  Indeed, it is likely that in most cases, merely aiming the gun at the attacker would have ended the assault.

If teachers and/or other staff members are covertly carrying firearms, it would not be necessary that all are carrying.  It would take some great effort to determine which staff member is actually carrying and when as well as how many.  But the policy being made known...and reiterated often...would make a given school less likely to be invaded by an armed thug intent on doing harm and whose purpose is generally the most newsworthy high body count. 

"Gun free zone" policy must end if we're serious about protecting our kids.

In addition to having adults properly trained and outfitted to protect students often referred to more than rhetorically or metaphorically as "my kids" by teachers and administrators, there are numerous other ways to protect kids from armed assaults, which is actually the point.  They range from expensive items such as metal detectors (already utilized in many schools simply because of gang-bangers among the student population), to reducing entry points which would be monitored by both adults and video cameras.  There are also devices that are relatively inexpensive (some incredibly so) that would be far more effective than pretending assailants care about "gun free zones" or laws prohibiting types and quantities of firearms.  Below are links I found to effective ideas for protecting students.  Most people would even rightly refer to them as "common sense"  (in no particular order):

---This link concerns campus and building design and contains links to other articles focusing on specific areas of concern.

---This link features something that is alluded to in the link above, and is one of the first things I saw (on Facebook, actually) that compelled my interest in real and effective solutions to the problem of protecting students, that don't include depriving the law-abiding of their God-given right to determine how best to protect themselves.  It actually takes an existing product and finds that it works especially well for protecting students from active shooters, also.

---This link contains a general overview of identifying students who might be threats, as well as reducing their presence through education.  It breaks it down between what schools, communities and parents can do.

---This link offers two very inexpensive and easy to use products to secure classrooms and prevent entry.

---This link is another product, notable for the inventor of it.  It was a high school student who came up with this and outfitted his entire school with this device.  It shows true ingenuity and a decided degree of intelligence not found in the typical "ban assault weapons" buffoon.  The kid now has a patent on the device and is (or likely has by this point) making them for a second school.  He's making money, too, which is capitalism at its finest...seeing a problem, creating a solution, providing it to all who have need for a reasonable price.

---Finally, this link speaks to things some parents have thought of doing to help keep their kids safe.

Quite frankly, each of the above are true examples of "common sense" solutions to the problem.  While some might be expensive, adults must decide just how badly they want to protect kids, particularly when the next teacher contract expires and they choose to go on strike again.  Or, if towns insist on raising property taxes with the excuse that money is needed for schools, school board meetings should be packed with parents who demand spending priorities be adjusted so as to include, at the very least, some of the less expensive options listed above.  In addition, donating to the cause in one's own neighborhood, should be a no-brainer for anyone who expresses any concern at all with every publicized school shooting incident.  You want solutions?  How badly?  They exist in a variety of forms, none of which require taking away the rights of the law-abiding. 

Shameful Behavior Month

As June comes to a close, I am left feeling there is something seriously wrong with a society that devotes a month, as well as parades, to celebrating a sexual compulsion.   Even for those who take delight in acting on that compulsion, how do they come to feel it appropriate to march around proclaiming their sexual compulsion as if it actually deserves public applause? 

I get it.  The idea is supposed to be that there's no reason to be ashamed (not true...there's plenty reason), that they should not be judged in a negative manner (though their compulsion is to act immorally).  But to march around, designating a month of the year?  That's just plain goofy, to say nothing of perverse. 

When I see T-shirts that say something like, "Proud to be Irish", or I hear of "Black Pride", I think, "What did you do to become Irish or Black?"  Did you work hard to be born Armenian?  Was there a special test?  Again, there's no reason to be ashamed of one's race or heritage, even if one's race or heritage has a bad rep.  That is, Germans of today don't need to be ashamed because of all those nazis back during WWII.  But to be proud to be a German? 

Or one can be proud to be a part of a people that has done great things, more or less being proud of those members of one's people who actually did the great things, rather than being proud of having been born into that group.  But either way, these things are just accidents of birth and are no reason to be "proud to be a...whatever".  Did YOU do something great?

But this is different.  This is being proud because one feels like doing something.  Or worse in this case, actually having done it.  A sex act.  "I'm proud to have sex with my significant other!  Let's have a parade!"  Doesn't make sense.  Are these thirteen-year-olds?  "Check it out, dudes!  Me and Ellen did it!  I'm gonna celebrate it annually!" 

Of course, the reality is that it is just another attempt to convince normal people that these particular celebrants are normal, too (though they most certainly aren't), that they're no more or less moral than normal people (though they most certainly are celebrating immorality).  It is meant to enable the guilty and coerce everyone else into accepting the dysfunction.   It is meant to ram their idea of morality and normalcy down the throats of the general population, without the consent of the general population. 

Here's a really goofy aside:  I turned on the radio as I was about to drive in to work and a sports talk show was ending.  One of the two sports dudes was talking about how much fun he had at the city's "Pride" parade, and how his wife continued to hang out there while he had to go to the radio station for his show...and how the station needs a float or something in next year's parade...and how everyone at the station is down with the idea (or so he believes, anyway).  Good gosh! 

Hell in a handbag, my friends.  Hell in a handbag.

Poor LeBron!

I couldn't tell the proximity or distance of either ref, one calling a blocking foul on James and the other calling charging on Durant.  But as I saw the play commence, there was no doubt in my mind that the blocking call was correct.  I don't know about all the sports talk dudes who discussed the call the next day, but in real time it was quite clear to me that James was moving when contact was made.  That makes it a blocking foul on him.  The replay made it even more apparent.  The sports talkers believed that at any other point in the game, or in any other game, Durant is called for charging.  This is nonsense given at least one of the refs called blocking immediately. 

So the refs pretend there is a question about the restricted area so the rules say they go to the tape.  There was never any real question that James was outside the restricted area.  It was just a ruse to settle the question since both refs were convinced of what they saw.  Again, not really seeing where they were when they made their respective calls, who knows?  But they abused a rule in order to see the tape and the tape showed James was moving.

I thought I heard someone, and it could have actually been while the play was being discussed by the announcers and analysts, that moving doesn't matter.  But that's not true.  And James was clearly moving, even without benefit of the replay to confirm.

Everybody is saying the Cleveland was robbed, because without the replay, the charge call, which I guess was the call on the floor, would have stood and should have.  But here's the truth:  if the roles were reversed, and it was James going to the rim and Durant defending, there is no way James would have been called for charging.  This is a guy who routinely runs over defenders who are even moving away from him, trying to avoid contact.  He could be called for charging two or three times per game on average, and when he is called for charging, he whines.

So for anyone who believes the game was stolen because of this call, go wet yourself.  Try scoring more points next time or prevent being scored upon, then these calls won't matter.

As for replays, I hate 'em.  Never wanted them to be employed in any sport I watch.  That is to say, not for the purpose of correcting or confirming calls.  Whiners whine about not wanting a game decided by a bad call.  Again, play better.  Score more.  Ensure that the other team scores less.  No one likes a call to go against them whether the call is right or wrong.  To blame a loss on the refs is wussy stuff.  Suck it up.  You weren't good enough.  The refs had nothing to do with it.  

The Great Debate: Solutions Part 3

Before getting into other suggestions for solutions to the issue of school shootings, I would be remiss if I did not point out how the most recent incident at the Sante Fe, Texas happens to show the stupidity of the gun-control narrative.  No semi-automatic rifle was used.  The punk used a sawed-off shotgun (as I understand it) and a revolver.  Now the gun-control buffoons must admit they want to ban all firearms, because neither of these can be classified as military grade weapons.  They are not semi-automatic, don't have large magazines and don't look like M-16s.  The weapons were stolen from the punk's parents.  They were not purchased from a gun show, or through a straw purchase.  As such, no background checks were possible. 

And again, adults failed to see the warning signs, but thankfully, school resource officers were there to confront the punk and limit the carnage.  A teacher with a concealed carry permit might have done better were one on sight.  Thus, we again see that a punk felt relatively safe attacking people in a school with little fear of return fire. 

We also see that when we consider the weapons used, the means by which such a punk might achieve his goals is dictated by circumstance.  He didn't need an AR15 because he could get his hands on a shotgun and revolver.  With those, twenty took hits with half of them dying.  This means that banning rifles like AR15s is a worthless move and meaningless if other forms of firearms are accessible.  What's more, the reports stated that explosive devices were part of the plan as well, so no firearms wouldn't have mattered anyway, were his lethal intentions intense.  So still, guns aren't the problem.

So what other solutions might have made prevented this incident?  One that I encountered in a previous job that brought me to a number of schools is limited entry.  The fewer doors through which people can enter, the easier it is to monitor who comes in.  In several schools I had to regularly visit, I had to get buzzed in.  I'd ring a bell, a person from the office would speak to me over an intercom and, as I was expected, I was allowed entry.  More often than not, my entry was directly through the main office before I could access any other part of the school.  Some schools also had cameras at the main entrance so that a visitor was seen as well as heard.  (Other co-workers visited city schools --Chicago-- were there were security people who not only watched out for you, but for your vehicle as well, while protecting the school, too.)  Anybody that looked the least bit suspicious would not be granted entry.  This doesn't even require armed guards.

This one simple strategy acknowledges something that feo-for-brains gun control people don't:  the issue is protecting students from attacks by those who will find a way to do harm no matter what weapons are denied the law-abiding public.  By monitoring who comes in (listen up defenders of illegal immigrants), those in charge can regulate entry to those deemed safe for admittance.  Thus, the means by which an assailant intends to do harm...what tool chosen for the task...doesn't matter.  One who has no legitimate reason for being there isn't allowed entry in the first place.

I recall back in the early 70's, a friend and I drove another friend for his last day of summer school.  We sought to wait the four hours until school was out and drive the dude home.   We attempted to plant ourselves in the cafeteria where vending machines and a jukebox would make our wait enjoyable.  The administration denied us, simply because we had no legitimate business being in the building...waiting for our friend not considered legitimate business.  I have no doubt that the thought that we might be armed and intending to shoot up the place never crossed their mind.  It was simply a natural and reasonable attitude that those with no legitimate business could not remain in the building, particularly when classes were in session.  We were escorted out.

But let's get back to the Sante Fe shooting.  Would this suggestion have made a difference?  No.  The shooter was a student in the school.  But limited entry would help make this trench coat wearing kid stand out.  A hot day and one kid is overdressed.  Might that not be a good reason to approach the kid?  It was his practice and while I don't know if he was so attired on the day in question, had he been then perhaps he was planning this, or something like this, by setting the precedent of always wearing the coat.  How much intelligence is required to suppose that such fashion statements might be used for ill and thus it might be best to dissuade the kid from so dressing?  In another flashback to my yoot, a group of us was attending a school dance (live music from local bands populated with other friends was common back then).  Entry was limited through one doorway.  At the post was a couple of school staff, including the school cop, with whom we were each personally acquainted for one reason or another.  The officer had no moral issue with plunging his hand in the coat pocket of my buddy, wrapping his hand around an ounce of weed.  Knowing we were more rascal than criminal, he released his grip and warned us to stay out of trouble.  It would have been an easy bust, and had we been more than mischievous a ride to the station would have been in my buddy's immediate future.  The point here is that true monitoring was common then and that single point of entry resulted in an awareness the authorities couldn't have had with multiple avenues of access.

This school security thing isn't complicated.  Some of it, like single point of entry, has been implemented in many schools for some time.  Why it isn't universal is a failure of the adults who aren't using their heads.  It doesn't require denying weapons to the law abiding to implement in order to make schools that much safer.  It can be enhanced with metal detectors for those schools who want to go that far, as one school I visited now and then had upon passing through their single point of entry.   It can be enhanced by a cop, a volunteer or any member of the school staff with a concealed carry permit.  And it stands as one more point on a larger list of solutions that would actually reduce the ability of assailants to achieve their fatal goals, and which gun-grabbers with their heads up their feo's lack the intelligence to recognize is reasonable, practical and easily doable.

The Great Debate: Solutions Part 2

We live in a time where technology continues to astound and amaze us with constant advances.  It seems there's nothing that can't be done.  With this in mind, I would think it should be rather elementary (for those techies who do this sort of thing) to have a means by which background checks could be almost foolproof.

Now, there are already background checks for all licensed dealers to make sure potential customers aren't criminals or insane people.  And from what I understand, it might not be the case that a customer's info is stored so that his purchases are recorded for future use...except, perhaps, by the actual dealer should he be questioned about whether or not Joe Blow bought a piece from him.  That is, the dealer is protected in this way because it establishes as well that he followed the protocols. 

I have to say that I am not very well educated on just what the procedures are to the extent that I could present them here.  Should I decide I wish to purchase a piece, I'll find out at the time.  I just know that procedures are in place.

But as control freaks demand "tighter" background checks...or whatever the heck it is they're demanding...I offer the following:

We know there is facial recognition software and for all who make their living selling firearms, access to a system that stores photos of criminals and the insane should be as immediate as possible.  If the government is to be involved in deciding who should not have guns, the government should have a system in place for this purpose.  It should be accessible by all branches of law enforcement, from the local cops up to the federal level, including Homeland Security, the FBI (of course), the CIA, the DOJ and any other law enforcement department.

The thought here is that should a person seek to purchase a firearm of any kind, a state issued picture ID (I know...an outrage, isn't it?) must be presented (which it is now) and the picture on it could be scanned at the dealership because the dealer has access to the system that collects the info.  Should the person seeking a firearm turn out to be a criminal or an insane person, the dealer will know immediately and refuse the sale.  At the same time, law enforcement is alerted that the criminal/loonie is attempting to purchase a firearm. 

Conversely, if one has no criminal record or hasn't been certified as crazy, the sale can go through without anyone but the dealer knowing about the person's desire to purchase a gun.  Because there is no reason why a law abiding citizen need inform anyone in government about his ownership of any weapon.  It's a "none of your business" reality with regard to the government. 

I also think they should be able to have on file fingerprints or possibly DNA samples (not that gun dealers would need to draw blood or anything, but simply to have all that info about a criminal readily available in the same place).  There are fingerprint scanners in use in a variety of businesses and government facilities for security purposes, and I doubt it would too much trouble to adapt that tech for the purpose of screening out bad actors from purchasing weapons.

If those who should not possess firearms are prevented from buying from legitimate sources, there would only be the black market which is already problematic...as well as illegal.  Of course, there's theft, too, but the point here is that the focus turns from scrutinizing the law-abiding to blocking the unsavory and the certifiable...which is where the focus should always have been in the first place.

As to exactly who should have their info stored for this purpose can be worked out.  Naturally those convicted of violent crimes would be among them, as would those certified as dangerous due to their mental issues.  Non-violent misdemeanors and non-violent psych patients might be excluded.  The concern here is not to permanently deny those who won't forever be a threat, but again, that can be worked out.  The point here is that this addresses the issue of keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them for ill.  Any techies out there who see this as an impossible task?

Reality, Delusion, Opinion and Fact

In two separate posts at Dan's blog (here and here), each discussion disintegrated into the usual diversionary accusations by Dan regarding things like "reality", "delusion" and "opinion versus fact".

Beginning with the third diversion...opinion versus fact...Dan determines to avoid dealing with points raised about Scripture with this favorite tactic.  If Dan disagrees with a point, regardless of how supported a point may be through citing Scripture, interpretations over the centuries by scholars, detailed studies of the original languages, etc...we mustn't regard our agreement with all of this as "fact".  Without an actual visit by God, complete with state ID so we know it's really Him, wherein He testifies that, yes, He really did mean what all that thousands of years of translations, interpretations, tradition and understanding verifies for us,  it simply isn't a fact, according to Dan, but only "human opinion".  And to Dan, we've proven we can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

But despite my asking, Dan has yet to explain why opinion is NEVER also fact.  This is not to equate the two, as "opinion" and "fact" are clearly not synonymous.  But Dan seems to believe that an opinion can never also be fact at the same time.  Here's the problem:  Dan dismisses, say, a young earth because according to Dan, the science has "proven" that the earth is very old.  Actually, it does not.  Scientific interpretation of available data, minus any consideration for the supernatural, only suggests an old earth.  That is, Dan takes as fact that which is only truly opinion.  It doesn't even matter that evidence may seem overwhelmingly in favor of an old earth.  It is still only opinion as we cannot prove beyond any doubt that the earth is as old as Dan believes it is.  As such, Dan is guilty of the very "sin" of which he accuses his debate opponents.  (This particular issue...old earth, young earth...is one Dan likes to bring up to make his point.  I've never taken a position on which I believe to be true because it can't be proved without going back in time.  But he uses it to pretend his point is solid.  Rarely are our differences on issues of this type.)

More importantly is that the question of opinion versus fact in Dan's argument depends upon one agreeing with Dan that what is seen as a fact is really an opinion, simply because Dan doesn't like the fact.  That is, he insists it is only an opinion because he doesn't like the fact and he rejects all evidences submitted to support the point as fact.  In doing so, he provides himself cover from the obligation to either defend his own position to the end, or demonstrate the other position is wrong.  Indeed, he plays this card when he finds his position has been exposed as incredibly shaky.  I would much prefer that Dan drop this diversionary tactic and put in the effort required to, not only make his case, but to defend it against all the objections, criticisms and questions his positions always provoke.  He cannot, so he plays the "just your opinion" card and disparages his opponent should he not cave to Dan's insistence that it can be nothing more.

"Reality" and "delusion" are actually the same charge Dan levels at his opponents who will "not see reason" as Dan perceives it.  And this is another diversionary tactic Dan employs to free him from responding to specific criticisms and questions, or when Dan's criticisms of opponent arguments fail.  One is unable to grasp reality or is delusional if they disagree with Dan and refuse to abide Dan's rules for determining what is reality and delusion.  It is notable that these rules favor Dan exclusively and are thus an insurmountable hurdle that protects him from accepting the errors in his own reasoning, or even facing the possibility that errors exist at all.  He covers himself by "admitting" that he's only putting forth opinion, but he treats them as fact.  His "opinion" defense also allows him to wallow in his own delusion about the strength of his position.  What he fails to grasp is that reality and delusion are no more than opinion to him, but opinion he demands we accept as fact.  This irony is totally lost on him, but again, it is his shield against the obvious criticisms of his positions.  Only Dan is the authority on what is reality and what is delusion.  Conveniently, as I stated, this always puts Dan in the driver's seat and he won't start the car until one agrees with the road upon which we will travel in our discourse.  While we wish to take the road to truth, Dan insists we take the road to what he wants truth to look like.

The Great Debate: Solutions Part 1

So the debate centers around the question of what we can do to protect our kids from getting shot in schools.  Of course, the reality is that we really want to prevent mass shootings of anybody regardless of where they take place, but most of what follows can be considered with schools in mind.  It is my opinion that most of what can and likely should be implemented to achieve this goal does indeed include "common sense" solutions without resorting to any kind or level of "gun control"..."common sense" or otherwise.  That's because not only is it unnecessary to enact more laws and regulations on the manufacture, sales and possession of firearms, but rather because guns aren't the problem.  They never were.

So what is the problem?  Bad people, either criminal or insane, getting their hands on weapons of one kind or another and using them to murder.  The situation at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (henceforth referred to as "Parkland") points to the first point of emphasis:  adults doing their jobs. 

Due to the largest arrest numbers of juvenile offenders in the state, Broward County, FL. School Board implemented their "PROMISE" program (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Supports & Education).  This well-intentioned program sought to reduce the possibility of young people being burdened with a criminal record for what was often misdemeanors.  The crime rate for teens did drop, and they report 70% of those in the program did not go on to commit other crimes (I would say "not yet" is the best that they can honestly say).  But two major problems exist simply by a quick review:  1.  Arrest numbers have to drop if fewer kids committing crimes aren't having their crime reported or recorded, and 2.  The Parkland case is the second where the failures of this system led to a national news story, the first being the Trayvon Martin case.  And as in the Martin case, Nikolas Cruz was a person who should have been arrested, and had that been the case, Martin would likely be still alive and Cruz would not have been able to purchase firearms.

As this story suggests, the program puts the schools over the cops in deciding whether or not an arrest is warranted.  This is a problem if a school district is looking to improve their reputation as well as preserve their funding by keeping kids in school...maybe when a kid should instead be incarcerated.

In any case, Cruz stands as an example of the system failing in an epic manner.  It is said that many people, from fellow classmates to federal law enforcement, were aware of this kid and no arrests ever took place, even after repeated visits by local police and numerous issues while he was a student at the Parkland school.   Adults didn't do their jobs.   Indeed, some of his actions constituted felonies which would not have fallen under the plan of the PROMISE program...he should have had a criminal record or some level of psychological record that would have denied him the liberty to purchase a firearm. 

So when we really decide to dig deeply, we can see that before we talk about ANY regulations or laws, we must look first to enforcing what exists and doing those jobs as the seriousness of the ramifications dictates. 

Naturally, the "adults must do their jobs" step must be a commitment of parents as well.  This is much more difficult given how so many people reject traditional notions of right and wrong and also differing notions of what constitutes good parenting in the first place.  But at its most basic level, good parenting demands close monitoring and guidance of one's children from their earliest years  until they are legal adults.   The idea of parents as "best friends" is a dismal failure and while in my case, the relationship between my kids and myself and the missus has been as friends to a great extent, there was always a distinct line drawn about who lays down the laws and who follows them.  I've been blessed with great kids who, now as adults (with the youngest about to complete her senior year of college) though less than perfect as the best of us are, continue to make me both proud and humble with their fine, upright character.   How typical is our case is another story. 

But for some, the best efforts fail and the kids go bad, and can go bad early.  It is then that other adults, teachers, counselors, law enforcement, must do their jobs as if lives depend upon them doing so...since we've seen that lives do indeed depend upon them.

So this is the first step of the solution, but only a first step.  It is one that must be addressed before any other step is taken because without adults doing their job, no law, regulation, program or government theft of personal property (guns) or infringements upon liberties (possessing the weapons of one's choice) will make a difference.  Where the criminal or insane have the will, there's a way.  They'll find it. 

Stayed tuned.

UPDATE!!

It occurred to me that I didn't mention a thing about what to do should adults continue to fail to do their jobs and future mass shootings occur as a result.  Well, for those in positions of authority, such as law enforcement, at the very least, job loss is reasonable.  In some cases, perhaps even charges of negligent homicide might be appropriate.  There must be some threat hanging over the heads of those in whom we've put our trust...something that compels greater care in making sure the jobs are done properly given the possible tragic consequences of NOT reporting bad behaviors, or NOT transferring records of bad behaviors to others that might have need of them.  I'll be thinking more about this as this series progresses.

The Great Debate: Guns---An Introduction

With the recent attack at that Florida high school, we are once again inundated with all manner of tired and useless suggestions about how to prevent the next one, all dealing with denying law-abiding citizens their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.  While these tragic events also compel facts and truths gun-grabbing, gun control advocates continue to ignore...if they ever take the time to actually research them in the first place...it is incumbent upon rational, honest people to re-iterate those truths and facts every time.  With that in mind, I intend to post as many arguments for reason as is necessary in order to have them all aired in one place.  I will endeavor to support each one with links to evidence and facts that justify the positions I will put forth.

To begin, I wish to state my personal opinion on the issue of gun rights.  It begins with the United States Constitution.  This document is a restriction on government...specifically the federal government...and it acknowledges rights we already possess by virtue of the fact that we exist at all.  So, we don't possess the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because the federal government bestows those rights upon us.  We were born with those rights already a part of us in the same way we were born with two arms.  Government is obliged to respect those rights and the Constitution is the law that imposes that obligation by restricting the government from infringing upon those rights.

The 2nd Amendment, then, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose, primarily, of defending ourselves against the government, as well as for personal defense against all else.  Hunting and sport shooting was of no concern when crafting the 2nd Amendment.  With that in mind, where's the sense in allowing the government (federal, state or municipal) to dictate whether or not I own a firearm, when and where I can carry one and what type f firearm I choose for the purpose?  The Constitution considers government the threat...the "bad guy" in this equation...and yet we decide that the potential oppressor gets to dictate to those it seeks to oppress how to deal with the oppression to be inflicted.  It's really insanity.

Thus, my position is that it is absolutely none of the government's business if I own a gun, what kind of gun it is, how many I own and whether or not I can carry it openly or concealed on my person.  They have no Constitutional authority to regulate any of that so long as I remain a law-abiding citizen, and that includes actual "military grade" weaponry, such as fully automatic weapons.

Oh, my!  He didn't just say that, did he?  Is he nuts?

No.  I'm quite sane so far as anyone honestly can say.  Back in the day, when our nation was still pulling up its Pampers, all "military grade" weapons were produced privately, not by the government.  This was true well into the 19th century.  Even the Gatling gun was invented and produced privately and sold first to railroads (along with some others) to control striking workers.  The Army got them later.

More importantly, the founders recognized that the able-bodied, law-abiding citizens...also known as "the militia"...needed to have weapons capable of fending off a rogue government.  This means that were Thompson Sub-machine Guns available at that time, the people would likely have had them first, and the founders would have been totally cool with it.  The concept is a simple one:  how does one keep the bully (despotic governments) at bay while giving the bully all the superior firepower? 

(Before going any further, I wish to insist that I can provide links with supporting evidence for all I say and believe, and will do so in later posts on this subject as needed.  Right now, I'm merely laying down a premise.)

Even the founders can be noted supporting these concepts.  They were inspired by an Italian guy named Cesare Beccaria, from his Essay on Crimes and Punishments, whence comes the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. 

     "A Principle source of errors and injustice, are false ideas of utility.  For example, that legislator has false ideas of utility, who considers particular more than general convenience; who had rather command the sentiments of mankind, than excite them, and dares to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages, to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire, for fear of being burnt, and of water, for fear of being drowned; and who knows of know means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
     The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent.  Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance?  Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty?  It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages rather than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons."

 This moral has been manifested repeatedly with regard to self-protection...or the lack thereof, and we've seen it with all of these school shootings where the unarmed are at the mercy of the armed.  But the poor thinkers believe that new laws can make a difference, as if the many laws already on the books on any number of behaviors has ever prevented someone from engaging in those behaviors.

No, the laws that people are seeking...those people who want the government to "do something"...are definitively, distinctly and by definition those that are examples of our inherent right to own and bear arms. 

The problem is not now, nor has it ever been guns.  It is the character of people.  It is the absolutely insane idea of posting for all to see the message that those within are totally and absolutely unprotected because they inhabit a "gun free zone".  It is the unwillingness to accept the reality of the existence of evil in the world (unless they want to apply the word to Republicans or Christians) and the ongoing struggle between it and goodness.  It is the rejection of the notion that a God exists and is waiting to judge us for our sins.  But it is not guns. 

That's all for now.  More to come in future posts.

More Than Just "A Little" Biased

One of Dan's nonsensical attacks on Trump is Trump's attacks on the press, and how anti-American and damaging to democracy it is for a sitting president to call out the press.  Despite Dan's ignoring of the facts I presented showing that his guy Obama was truly the malicious one in how he dealt with the press, Dan regards Trump's legitimate concern with blatant and hostile left-wing bias as somehow of greater concern.  He has provided no evidence that Obama's attacks worried him one bit, demonstrating that Dan is no better than those he defends.

In any case, I thought I'd provide some examples of liberal media bias and "fake news" that justifies Trump's criticisms, but also justifies the general mistrust of the media by the American people in general.  I doubt Dan will peruse these offerings, but at least he can't say no evidence exists that justifies those critiques and lack of trust.  Here ya go:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/can_socalled_factcheckers_get_facts_straight.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/iran_protests_as_the_underhanded_connivings_of_the_jews_reuterstv_gets_caught_pushing_that_one.html

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16-fake-news-stories-reporters-have-run-since-trump-won/

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/the_mainstream_media_has_forfeited_all_respect.html?utm_source=akdart

https://townhall.com/notebook/stevesheldon/2018/01/02/suppression-of-good-news-is-the-presss-dirtiest-tactic-n2406630

https://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/8/mainstream-media-maligned-10-examples-blatant-bias/

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/12/10/the-7-worst-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-mainstream-media-n2257896

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/12/10/the-7-worst-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-mainstream-media-n2257896

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-study-as-trump-won-media-coverage-turned-sharply-negative/article/2596199

https://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

https://www.crtv.com/video/ep384--2017-year-in-review--the-media--fake-news-part-1

https://www.crtv.com/video/ep385--2017-year-in-review--the-media--fake-news-part-2

I really could have spent a lot more time gathering such stories.  These cover the issue from a variety of angles.  Personally,  I don't have a problem with a given news source deciding what story deserves its attention.  It would be great if they could be held to account when the general public finds out that their choices do not inform us in a manner that is most beneficial or informative (and truthfully so).  Fortunately, there are so many more sources available now than ever before.  But UNfortunately, this requires more diligence by the consumer to find sources that are trustworthy and dedicated to bringing news that is indeed most beneficial and informative (and truthfully so). 

The bottom line for the purpose of this post is that Dan's concern that Trump is wacky and a liar for calling out the press and for lamenting the proliferation of "fake news" is no more than scraping for evidence with which to indict Trump.  The more Dan can find to demonize Trump, the better, because Dan embraces grace.  

Count this as another area that Dan is completely wrong about Trump.