Tag Archives: gun control

There Is Nothing Compassionate About Making People Helpless

Rpae of the Sabine Women, Loggia dei LanziThere is nothing compassionate about making people helpless.  Where laws are unenforced and our rights are impeded, we’re reduced to survival of the fittest where the weak are at the mercy of the strong.  This is true from unrestricted illegal immigration to gun control.  There is nothing compassionate about letting people flow through our borders unchecked and unvetted.  It endangers both citizens and immigrants alike.  We know neither the motivations nor backgrounds nor health of those coming in unless they go through the process, a process my husband went through to earn citizenship.  There is nothing compassionate about disarming us.  It only puts us at the mercy of criminals and results in more innocents killed.  That our immigration laws and border have been ignored is the very reason we are now faced with the need for a moratorium on immigration entirely, both in light of the Paris massacre Friday and because ISIS is already here having come through our porous borders.  Had we been enforcing our laws all this time we would be in a better position to take in genuine refugees if we wanted to – and to guarantee protection from the oppression and violence they’re fleeing.  Enforcing these laws has nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with the preservation of the very things that make people want to come here.  So too the right to self-defense has nothing to do with “gun culture” and everything to do with self-preservation which covers people of all colors.  It is the weak who have the greatest need for protection that benefit the most from enforced law and the right to self-defense.  Where these are lacking, we’re all at the mercy of force.

Dear Gang of 8

There should be no discussion whatsoever about changing or amending immigration policy without first securing our border, enforcing current immigration law, and implementing E-verify.  The Boston Marathon bombing perfectly illustrates why we should insist that our borders be secured and our immigration policy vigorously enforced. Our borders are wide open and we all know it.  You have no idea who the millions of illegal immigrants in this country are:  You don’t know why they came, where they’ve been, what they bring with them.  You haven’t asked each and every one of them.  Our current immigration process does just that – so the United States knows that when an immigrant has become a citizen, his background has been checked for criminal records, his blood checked for communicable diseases, his financial records checked for stability, his knowledge of the country, its laws, and his reasons for being here committed to record.  My husband went through that process and became a citizen, it’s not that hard!

The millions who go through that process have declared that they want to be citizens and they obeyed our laws so that they too could be protected by those laws.  Many fled from countries where they didn’t have such protection.  The last idea our representatives should be entertaining is to pile millions of illegal immigrants – who didn’t want to bother with our legal process – on top of the millions who did.  This is already an overburdened process.  How much extra taxpayer funded staff will have to be added to field the paperwork of all the new Amnesty recipients?  How many legal immigrants’ cases will be slowed and pushed aside for illegals to get a cheap ticket at the front?  Why should law-breakers be rewarded?  Why should law-abiding legal immigrants be so slighted?

You should demand that every inch of our border is protected, fenced, surveiled and patrolled.  You should oppose illegal immigrants being given any tax-payer funded services or driver’s licenses which are magnets drawing them here.  You should demand the implementation of E-verify.  This obvious and peaceful solution will have illegals returning to their countries of origin on their own.  The interest of Big Businesses who want cheap labor are not more important than the safety of every citizen and the livelihoods of citizens out of work in Obama’s horrible economy.  You should demand the implementation of voter ID – stand against those who are nullifying the votes of legal citizens with their fraud.  Give these three to five years to work before discussing any Amnesty policy.

The anti-gun bill was killed this week.  People know that where crazy people commit mass shootings and crazy Jihadists commit mass bombings, we need to be able to protect ourselves every single day.  The best defense against both threats are law-abiding gun-owners exercising their right to bear arms, and the government and criminals shouldn’t be the only ones with guns.  Your Amnesty bill should fail for similar reasons because it’s not just terrorists that are a concern.  In my home of North Carolina there are dozens and dozens of crimes committed every month by illegal aliens.  They are drunk drivers, rapists, molesters, batterers and murderers.  We know about the government’s catch-and-release policy.  We know of all the criminals who were released, supposedly in preparation for Obama’s Sequestration.  The purpose of the government is to protect its citizens and part of that is securing our borders and enforcing the law.  It’s obvious, we all know it, every country does it and there’s nothing racially charged or unfair about it.  Stop the push for Amnesty!

Gun Control 2.0: You’re Crazy ‘Cause I Said So, Now Hand Over Your Guns

Bloomberg reports today that in California they are seizing guns from formerly legal gun owners who no longer qualify to own them because of criminal charges or commitment to a mental hospital.  Taking guns from criminals? Good.  Taking guns from the mentally ill and unstable?  Also good, since they make up 99.9% of those who have committed mass murder with guns in the United States.  But with a government that is pushing for increasing measures to disarm citizens and Obamacare in control of medicine, how long before the sane gun-owning citizens are deemed mentally unstable in the name of gun control?

According to the article, Lynette Phillips was the subject of such a gun seizure due to a two-day involuntary commitment to a mental hospital.  The alarming part is her assertion that, “the nurse who admitted her had exaggerated the magnitude of her condition.”  Now, we don’t know the circumstances, why she was thought to be crazy or what behavior made the nurse think Phillips should be committed.  And of course, the crazy don’t think they’re crazy.  If one is involuntarily committed, one has an opportunity to contest the decision before a judge, but it is permanently on the record.  But this raises an important question because judgments on another person’s sanity are made by individuals – fallible, subjective humans.  Those individuals make a determination nearly impossible to disprove that now affects one’s Constitutional right to own a firearm.

Under Obamacare doctors, nurses and other medical staff are no longer beholden to their patients, they are beholden to The State.  It holds the taxpayer-funded purse that allocates budgets and it controls the standards and directives by which medical staff and facilities must operate.  If doctors and nurses answer to the State, and the State wants to enact gun control, what’s to stop them from dictating judgments of insanity for those they want to disarm?  A doctor’s job, a hospital’s budget might depend on compliance with, for example, a new directive on what behavior indicates insanity or potential future violence.  Do you oppose this Administration’s policies?  You may be hostile.  You may be a danger to yourself or others.  The Administration certainly thinks so, and now they write the doctor’s checks.

The idea of a doctor asking a patient the question “Are there any guns in your house?” was raised after the Sandy Hook massacre when Obama proposed 23 executive orders to limit the use of guns.  Of these order 16 states, “…the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes,” and according to the White House fact sheet on the orders, “…no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence.”  Obama wants doctors to be able to get information on the firearms one owns, and under Obamacare he also controls the staff who diagnose things like mental stability and illness.

We know that gun ownership and conservative values overlap heavily across the United States.  With the help and compliance of the mass media this Administration has tried to defame and marginalize anyone who opposes its policies and doesn’t agree with its ideology. We also know whom the government deems to be a threat – the new Enemy of the People.  It’s not Islamic terrorists who scream “Allahu Akhbar” as they murder innocent civilians. Those are the justified “freedom fighters” of the “religion of peace.”  Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland “Security” has said that all returning Veterans are potential terrorists, that those who are against aborting babies are extremists, and we all know how they characterize the Tea Party in particular and conservatives in general.  Now they have ubiquitous control over the medical staff to dole out judgments of insanity.  What better way to further nullify your enemy than to declare them crazy – one gun-clinger at a time?

The Mental Pretzel of Gun Control

I wonder if Obama would respond with executive action to arm teachers in school if the kids wrote and said they’d feel safer knowing their teachers could defend them against vicious murderers.  Or would he throw out Michelle’s healthy school meals plan if a bunch of kids wrote to tell him they want fruit loops and fried chicken at every meal?  As for the parents, maybe we can start background checks on those who shamelessly manipulate their children for their own political ends.  With his backdrop of child props Obama announced his gun control plans today:

“We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible law breaking few from inflicting harm on a massive level.”

Really?  Since almost every mass-shooter so far has acquired their guns illegally, how will imposing more restrictions on law-abiding citizens stop law-breakers?  It won’t.  Nor will banning high-capacity magazines stop a mass murderer from shooting lots of people – the next will just do what Jared Holmes and Sandy Hook shooter (an many a Hollywood character) did – bring lots of guns.  When you’re out of rounds, just grab the next gun.  Meanwhile, the Atlanta mother who shot a home invader could have certainly used more than seven rounds – she shot him five times and he was still able to flee.  What if there had been more than one intruder?  What if she hadn’t been a good shot?

Although the anti-gun cabal always wants to jump to act in the wake of a mass shooting, they rarely look at the real solutions: concealed-carry laws and medications checks.

Jared Holmes had a choice of seven movie theaters within thirty minutes of his apartment.  He chose the one that was a gun-free zone.  Schools are easy targets for predators because they are gun-free zones.  Most all of the mass-shooters of recent memory have been on or withdrawing from one or more anti-depressant or mood stabilizer such as Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft, and suicidal thoughts are just one of many negative side-effects of these drugs.  Others are mania, abnormal thinking, hallucinations, amnesia, agitation, psychosis, confusion, paranoid reactions, and more.  But this is a society that loves its psychiatrists and prescriptions and refuses to shed the light on their ill effects even though these effects are published by the FDA.  For many these drugs can be mental life-savers, but they shouldn’t be allowed weapons.  One must already have a clean record to purchase a gun and it wouldn’t be hard to put the question of the medications one is taking on the permit application.  This would not involve doctors and avoid the prospect of having the government consulting with one’s doctor or vice versa.

We don’t need $10 million for gun violence research, we need common sense.  Democrats want to reinstate the 1994 assault weapon ban that did nothing to stop the Columbine shooting.  And pray tell me, what good will gun-trafficking laws do when the administration itself gave us the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal?

Obama’s new gun control proposals will take law enforcement resources away from fighting crime and criminals and misplace it onto law-abiding citizens who simply don’t want to have to wait until the cops arrive when someone breaks into their house to steal, rape and murder, or tries to murder their children in school.  Fortunately most of his proposals require congressional approval, but with Obama’s record of ignoring the separation of powers and trampling the Constitution, we can expect that if he doesn’t get what he wants, he’ll impose it like he always does – by tyrannical fiat.

Between Feminism and Gun Control, Women Are Screwed

Mid-20th century Feminism has taught us that women don’t need men, that we can do anything men can do from business to close combat, that taking on the worst behavior of promiscuous men is desirable, and that we can avoid the physical and emotional consequences that result.  Chivalry is long since dead: Feminism declared it the relic of an oppressive patriarchal society rather than what it was: a standard that held women up in order to protect them.  And they have convinced themselves that any differences between the sexes exist because they have been artificially imposed by men.  Meanwhile men have been emasculated and fathers relegated to mere sperm donors.


Michelle Rodriguez in “SWAT.”

Has anyone noticed all the heroines in our films and television shows in recent years?  No longer are chivalrous men protecting vulnerable women.  From Alias to La Femme Nikita to any female-centric film you can name, the women are portrayed as fighting machines (with guns), often rescuing their male counterparts.  You know these films.  Michelle Rodriguez plays the same exact cardboard badass in so many of them.  They take down fighting man after fighting man.  But this is all fiction – take it from a female black belt and Iraq War veteran.  And don’t get me started on that twig LeeLee Sobieski on NYC22 playing a veteran who can take down street thugs.  The reality is that even Rhonda Rousey isn’t put in the ring with male fighters.

If women could do the same things men can, there wouldn’t be separate standards for them in police work, firefighting, and the military, or as is true in some cases, lower standards for both sexes that women can pass.  Most women can’t wield the fire hose, carry a 200-lb man off the battlefield, or take down a male criminal.  The last example was proved just recently when a female cop was overpowered by a criminal who had been taken into custody.  He stole her gun and three cops were shot.

Yes, some women are stronger than some men, but they are never stronger than strong men, and a woman without a weapon is no match for a man who wants to do her harm, even if she knows how to fight.  I earned that black belt, I became a Marine, I went to the combat zone.  But I also got cancer, and what happens when you can no longer physically fight?  What if you don’t want to fight?  How many women or moms, married or not, have time to train to become proficient fighters to be ready for that one random time the criminal comes at them in the parking lot?  You need to be able to own a weapon for self-defense if you choose.  You need to be able to nullify the threat before it comes down to hand-to-hand combat.

RhondaRouseyNo matter how much the Feminists rail, and no matter how many times Hollywood portrays heroic fighting women, women are the weaker sex.  This doesn’t mean lesser, it just means physically weaker and that’s a fact no amount of affirmative action or double standards can change.  Leave it to hypocritical liberals and feminists to ignore scientific reality in favor of the brave new world they want to force into existence.  You would think that girl-power philosophy would extend to empowering women to protect ourselves with any weapon available, especially after teaching us for so long that we don’t need men.  But no, the hypocrisy is ubiquitous.  Women don’t need men and they don’t need weapons either.  Feminism thus fails women.

Existing and new gun control laws coupled with Feminist ideals just means that we all have to become fighters, whether we want to or not. A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle until a strong man decides to take advantage of her and/or her children.  For 50 years now we’ve been taught that government will fill that void, but of course, the police usually come only come after a crime has been committed.  And now the cop might be some chick who made it on a double standard who gets overpowered by the criminal in your home.  Without a strong man to provide for and protect her, she not only must be a bread-winner, she must be a black belt – unless she can arm herself for protection.  Guns are the real equalizer between the sexes.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,889 other followers