EU, NATO, Let Ukraine Down

I'll bet Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President misses all those nuclear weapons his nation gave up at the insistence of his European Union "brothers". Oh, they used to be a nuclear power but since they were going to be part of the EU, they were talked out of having them because the EU said, "We'll help you deal with Russia, don't you worry at all!".

The EU, invincible in peace time, invisible in war time.

Now that the shit is hitting the fan between Russia and their former national bread basket, the European Union and NATO want no part of that altercation. "We've got your back." they have said yet when the bully comes onto the playground, Ukraine turns around and finds they are on their own...again.

Such is what life must be like for the Ukrainian people. Wanting out, wanting in, wanting to be something more than a backwards farm culture and yet always being dragged back into the darkness because they don't have the resources and nobody wants the Russian army, notorious for their ability to kill people indiscriminately and break things knocking on THEIR door.

Also, they buy a lot of booze and stuff.

So Ukraine dangles. It implores, it tries it's best to hold itself together as their European "friends" look on. Will NATO send troops to be a buffer between Russia and Ukraine?

Are you high on drugs? What, do you think this is Kenya or something where all they have are rifles and can't shoot for shit? Hell no, they're not going to send troops.

Will the European Union impose more sanctions on Russia? Will their navies lend a helping hand?

I wouldn't hold my breath. I haven't heard much condemnation coming out of any EU country over the Russian taking of Ukrainian naval vessels.

After all, this is all happening in Europe. Someone is bound to have noticed.

Perhaps they are preparing a response in secret and will spring into action after the G-20 Summit?

Yes, that's it, they are going to take action as soon as they all get back to their countries.

Fat chance. 

Young Autobots March on Washington

For these young activists, there is no alternative; guns have to go. But not all guns, just the "bad" ones and in this pursuit they have been given valuable access to national media channels.

Ignoring all facts connected to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, the missed opportunities of law enforcement to arrest the shooter and have him evaluated, the cowardice of the people who have taken a vow to serve and protect and so are paid a princely sum to do just that and the failure of people who failed to act, these people still blame the gun for the crime of the man behind it and the failure of the people put in charge to stop it.

So there must be more to this.

The Political Left's agenda is not to arm teachers so the kids don't want to arm teachers. The Political Left's agenda is to ban "Automatic" and "Assault" weapons so the kids want to ban these too. Never mind that they don't know what an assault weapon really is. Most rifles and 95% of all pistols sold are "Automatic" which is really Semi-Automatic. So most everything out on the market can be technically considered an "Assault Weapon".

Of course, what's in a name, right? You could just as easily call them "Defense Weapons" since plenty of people use them for that also. I guess that name won't stick for the media's political purposes.

So the demands by these young people are rigid, just like the Mentors who are advising and directing this latest campaign to take guns away from the law abiding citizenry.

Yes, we're sick of the shootings and the carnage but trying, again, to take the guns away isn't going to solve the problem so resisting the idea of having SOMEBODY who is armed in the school to protect the students should be approached with an open mind. It's the way things are moving and only requires legislation at the local level. Trying to get Congress to pass a restriction of any sort would come in direct conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

The real practical approach would be to bring back mental health facilities that were closed down in the 1980s. That was money well spent in light of having to deal with the aftermath of the mentally ill getting their hands on a gun.

Also it is apparent that we must re-impress upon our law enforcement establishment just what their job really is. It's not to put 40 rounds into an unarmed man in his grandmother's back yard. It's to protect us from bad people. When people are more concerned with police shooting them than a mentally deranged killer, things have gotten a bit out of hand.

So mass shooting training for all schools and place an armed person in the schools, either a volunteer teacher or armed guard. You'd think teachers would want to carry a gun given the chance since it's their neck on the line in the event of a shooting also. Who actually desires to be a human shield?  Grab a gun and make the other guy a human shield for Christ's sake.

Let's face the facts; despite the "Never Again" signs, this is going to happen again so it's best to be prepared for it the best you can and carping on yet another gun ban that has failed repeatedly in the past isn't the best way to do so.

President Trump hasn't said much other than banning the ridiculous bump stocks and thats fine. That is not a restriction to access. I also don't think Congress has the focus or the time to be trifling with an unsustainable ban that would foster only a strong counter-reaction that would shift focus away from the economy and put it squarely on the fight to overturn the law.

And there will certainly be a fight. Although this issue is never ultimately settled, the last definitive ruling was in 2008 when the Supreme Court re-affirmed that people have the right to posses a gun for personal protection.  We will just end up re-living the whole episode over again with more money and time being wasted.

People can try to muddy the water by knocking around what a "Militia" really is but since the Federal government pays to support the National Guard in each state and can order them to war regardless of that the governor of that state thinks, one cannot seriously conclude that they are really the "citizen soldiers" the 2nd Amendment refers to. They are regular army.

Nope, nope, nope, the people are the militia and they have a right to own a gun. And not a pop-gun either, they have the right to own a gun that chambers a bullet that our very own government uses.

So here we are.

What we are witnessing is a guided display made to convince us that these students and the nation is fed up and now all of one mind on gun-control when that certainly isn't the case. This will always be one of our great internal battle in these United States.

For what freedoms we have to remain, we too must remain ever vigilant.

Misunderstanding the 2nd Amendment

The founding fathers of the United States of America didn't fight a long and bloody war with the mighty British Empire so that we are all guaranteed the right to own a hunting rifle. That's just not it at all.

It was so that the citizenry, that's you and me, had a right to bear the same arms that could be brought to bear against us should the government determine that it should march against the people in order to subjugate them to their might.

As someone once put it, the people who started our government and framed the U.S. Constitution and it's linchpin, the Bill of Rights, were not powder-wigged fools. They foresaw that someday in the future that there could possibly be a time where people of the nation would need to use such arms to either defend themselves or to drive out those who may wish to take over the government either from within or without. And to do that, a hunting rifle just isn't going to cut it.

The Teeth in the Bill of Rights

Does anybody believe that any of the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights would be worth a hill of beans without the 2nd Amendment?

Freedom of Speech? The United States is the only country in the world where the right of the people to speak and say what they want, including talking down the President and it's ministers, that has written an absolute guarantee to it's people. We see the difference in this way of thinking all over the world. Canada doesn't guarantee it's citizens a right to free speech, nor France or Great Britain, not Australia or Sweden. Great Britain doesn't even have a written constitution. I guess your rights there are whatever Parliament says they are. No right to privacy, no right to free speech.

There is no equivalent anywhere in the world to our 1st Amendment. Some say it's our weakness but they'd be wrong. Like what you hear or hate it, people have a right to say it. And if, say, the government were to attempt to smash the people's right to protest and speak out, what mechanism could there be to impress upon government that the people wish to maintain this freedom?

That's where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

So perhaps one could say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the 1st.

How about the 3rd Amendment? Could soldiers possibly be taking over homes in modern times? Would you call that impossible? Well it is since it is specifically outlawed in the 3rd Amendment. So, say, if troops were deployed to a disaster area here in the U.S. and needed a place to stay and told you that they were staying and you had to go...well, that's where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

How about something like China's new "President" for life? I like how our government likes to refer to Dictators of counties we trade heavily with as "President". But take Mr. Xi Jinping and his desire never to leave office. If this happened in the United States, what do you suppose might happen?

China has no such right of the citizen to own a fire arm and it shows.

The 2nd Amendment upholds the entire Bill of Rights. It is a complete and most perfect document made strong by the right of the people to bear arms. It is unique to the world and because it is so, the 2nd Amendment is the most maligned and attacked amendment. It just goes to prove the adage that for the American citizen, freedom is fought for every day. And so we fight on for those who don't understand the full meaning of why it's there.

Lexington, Massachusetts

If anybody bothers to look at my profile picture, you'll see that I'm standing on the bridge at Lexington, MA. This is the spot where our first citizens stood and traded fire with the troops of the British Empire. No small feat this. This was the day of the "Shot Heard Around the World" and where later in the day practically all the armed citizen militia answered the call and the British, by the end of the day, got their asses shot off.

Why did the British come out of their Boston stronghold that day? What was their purpose? To get the guns. They knew rifles and gunpowder were being stored in Lexington. That's what they came for and there is a larger than you are lead to believe group of people in this country that thinks that the next entitled government entity will try the same thing if they aren't paying attention. That's just the way has been ever since that day, April 18, 1775. It's going to take more than the latest media parade to knock them off of this belief.

Gun Sales will Rise

Anyone who thinks that these school shootings has reduced by one iota the public's desire to defend themselves with a firearm is living under a mistaken belief system. People will again flock to buy a gun based upon the media's inflammatory rhetoric which has very much sought to exploit the tragedy in the hopes of getting out in front of their anti-gun campaign before the real story of the failure of law enforcement, both local and federal, to act to stop a very preventable shooting.

What's an Adult? 

Even if I lived in my mother's basement playing video games at the age of 18, I'm still considered an adult, although not quite a responsible one. But even so, the law says that at the age of 18 I can be tried as an adult in the court of law and sign binding contracts.

Raising the age of buying a semi-automatic rifle or weapon, and they're ALL semi-automatic these days, to 21 represents a clear infringement on the rights of an adult to own a firearm and will not stand. They can pass the law but it won't hold up in court. You can carry a fully automatic weapon in Afghanistan for the U.S. government but you can't carry a semi-automatic when you get back? That's bullshit.

Bill Clinton Tried it

The Clinton Administration passed the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" back in 1994 which only served to drive ownership of such labeled weapons underground. Who knew how many were out there. The state of California imposed an assault weapons registry which nobody paid any attention to. So that's your precedent.

Rights Under Assault

Our rights are violated daily. The National Security Agency, the NSA, has been outed as spying on U.S. citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment that guarantees protections from unlawful search and seizures of property. The 1st Amendment is under assault from the Political Left for which has been mounting a sustained campaign against what kind of speech is actually protected, branding speech as "racist" or "hateful" or partitioning speech with the bogus "Free Speech Zones" when, of course, all speech is free anywhere you want to speak it. The U.S. court system is constantly working on the 5th Amendment going so far as punishing people for failure to incriminate themselves.

We have giant U.S. corporations making deals with foreign Dictators while simultaneously voluntarily allowing our own government free access to their communications systems for "monitoring" of U.S. citizens. There is no privacy any more and the collusion between multi-national corporations and government to know everything about everybody should be a major cause of concern for every thinking American.

And you think people are going to just give up the right to own a gun?