Facebook becoming Socialistbook?

Well for the first time in many years of using Facebook for various reasons, and being an administrator of multiple groups and pages, I found myself being cut off in the middle of a session.

I re-logged in and found that I was presented with a message that Facebook had found something of mine violated their “community standards” and it showed me this:

A quote about Socialism by Hitler, circa 1927.

Now I had posted that as part of a collection of memes. Anti-gun control memes. Now I know that someone probably had to complain since it’s a .jpg, and not readable as a general rule by text recognition programs. SO some poor little socialist must not have liked that I pointed out that Hitler was a staunch socialist also. Too friggin bad.

So to all my friends and rights supporting, capitalist loving Americans, post and re-post away! Have fun with it! Trigger a few little socialist and have them froth at the mouth and hyperventilate.

No, I will not remove it. History is history and if you agree with it or not, like it or not, it proves a point and that is that Socialism is and has killed millions of people across the world, and Facebook does not want people to know that.

Do you really try and want to protect your family from evil?

The recent kidnapping case of Jayme Closs and the cold-blooded murder of her parents should serve as a wakeup call for people of the “it can’t happen to me” or the “nothing bad ever happens here” crowd. I am sure those same thoughts went through her parents’ minds, before the morning of October 15th, 2018.

According to authorities on that night at around midnight 21 year old Jake Patterson knocked on the door of the Closs home. Jayme’s father, James Closs appears to have answered the door (it appears to have been kicked in) and was found dead of gunshot wounds near the front door. Denise Closs was found elsewhere in the home, also shot to death. A 911 call was made from the Closs home at 12:56am, and all the dispatchers heard was a lot of yelling. From this audio investigators have determined that Jayme was inside the home and on their arrival she was missing. At 3:37am Jayme was officially listed as missing.

It appears from all indications that the suspect targeted the family to abduct Jayme. We do not yet know why or how he came to target her.

Fast forward to this last Friday, Jan 11th, 2018 at about 4:43 p.pm., and Jayme was found near a housing development just outside Gordon, Wisconsin. Alive thank goodness, and in apparent good condition.

So how does one prepare and “get ready” for an attack on your home and family like this? How can anyone even think that someone might try and do this to you or yours? Easy, it does, will and can so prepare for it and hope it never happens! It’s like insurance, something you have and hope to never have to use.

So let’s imagine someone knocks on your door at 12 am. First, why would you even answer the door? And in addition to that why would you do so unarmed and not ready to defend your home? I am willing to bet that the Closs’s do not have a camera system that shows the front door. I do. A simple check of the camera (takes seconds) would have shown James that the person knocking on the door was a stranger and it would have possibly shown him that Patterson was armed. Had that happened a simple call to 911 while being armed yourself inside the home would have probably prevented this whole thing.

So what can you do to prevent this type of home invasion and kidnapping from happening? Simple take simple precautions to secure your family and home. Get a good deep deadbolt and a steel front door. Get a camera system (they are very inexpensive these days) for the front door. If you really want to make a good security system, get cameras that cover all sides of your home. I bought the Ring doorbell for my home, and the Blink camera system for all sides of my home. They are great. Send alerts to me on my phone at work so I can see who is at my home when my wife and son are home. My wife has access to the camera feeds also, and is also armed at home if needed.

That brings me to arming yourself. Many people are fearful of firearms. Most of the time this is because they have never handled or been shown the proper way to handle them. Firearms in the home are not some scary boogyman that is going to jump up and shoot someone. Firearms are just a tool, like anything else you buy do to protect yourself. The only difference is that they require that you learn to use them properly and train with them to be proficient enough with them to make them effective tools of self-defense.  While it is your right to own one, I also recommend you get training with it to make it more effective as a tool for defense.

I do not have enough room or time to write out all of the things you should do to train correctly. Best thing you could do is find a local gun range that provides training in the use of firearms and take a few classes. They are worth it. In the grand scheme of things how much is your life and the life of your family worth?

Or you can always be one of the “it will never happen to me or my family” group and when it does, you can then either be dead, or planning the funeral of a loved one. I choose to be prepared, having seen firsthand others having to do those very things.

Here is an article I wrote some time ago “Responsible Firearms Ownership: I Bought a Firearm for Self-Defense, Now What?” That should help you if you decide to take you and your families security into you own hands as you should. Take it from a lifelong cop, we cannot protect you and your family. We are minutes away when sometimes seconds count!

Why do we “need” AR-15 rifles or any other firearm?

Recently during a very one-sided debate, I was shouted at and asked why I “needed” an AR-15 or other rifles like that. I was also told that only the police and government should have those types of firearms.

Those comments made me shiver. The fact that people who are discussing basic Constitutional rights do not know what the basis of a right is, and why we should not allow them to be restricted or removed anymore than they are.

The first question as to why I “need” an AR-15 or other firearm is one of the core reasons for the 2nd Amendment. I do not ‘need” anything. I have the “right” to peacefully and lawfully possess an AR-15 or other firearm because it’s my choice. A “right” is just that, I can exercise it if I want to or not. Just like I can exercise my right to free speech or not. I can choose to be silent if I do not want to use that right, but if I do, as I am here, then there is nothing that should stop me if I am not harming anyone. Just as my right to own firearms is just that, my right, and should not be restricted if I am not harming anyone unlawfully. That’s why it’s a right and not a “need”.

And when they asked why I thought I should have them and not just the police and government, I almost fell out of my chair. Did they not know basic history? Our forefathers went to war to divest themselves of a government that was trying to do just that, remove arms from the citizens to make ruling over them easier. Of the numerous countries where the removal of the ability of the citizens to defend themselves, especially against a government that became tyrannical, dictatorial or worse, resulted in millions dying at the hands of that very government should have been enough. Then there is the minor issue of the police only having the guns. Having been one for 35 years, I am here to tell you police cannot protect you all the time. You are not able to rely on the few police officers out there that might just be lucky enough to be around the corner and arrive in the nick of time to save you. And the minor issue that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled it is not the duty of the police to protect you as an individual. So, if not theirs than who’s is it? It’s yours!

So when you ask why does someone need an Ar-15, we don’t need them. We have the right to have them. We don’t need them, unless of course we do to defend our family or country, from the government itself. Then it may be to late since some want them all removed because of the actions of a few murderers. And please don’t use that old worn out, you can never defeat the US Military with AR-15’s. I don’t expect a lot of military folks would go along with orders to attack or harm US Citizens. But that just is coming form a U.S. Army veteran. Had I been ordered to do so I would have simply refused.

So good luck with your arguments we don’t need these firearms. No we have the right to have them and until such a time as that right is repealed (that’s another topic) you have no right to tell me, a law abiding U.S. Citizen, that I don’t. As a side note, of the Bill of Rights, which ones have the words “shall not be infringed” in them? And why? Maybe because our forefathers had seen just that, a government trying to infringe on the citizens it was supposed to serve not rule?

Is Requiring a Fee to Exercise a Right Constitutional?

Regardless of which political party you belong, I think we can probably all agree that requiring a fee to exercise a right is just wrong, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. Let’s take voting for instance. We all can agree being able to vote is a right. The right to vote is mentioned five times in the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments speak of voting specifically. So it’s agreed that it’s a right. So what if we required a few things in order to be able to exercise it?

Well, I think that requiring someone prove who they are, and qualifying that they are a U.S. citizen, is not too much to ask. Everyone can do that regardless of economic status, and it will not prevent anyone from voting. Right? But what if we added a $100 “voting” tax? Just something to make a little extra money for the government. Not a big deal, right? What? Wait! If you add a fee to exercise a right, does that not put that right out of the reach of some people who may be economically challenged? That makes that fee discriminatory against that demographic of people. We can’t have that. H,ow can we add fees to exercising a right and make it hard or impossible for people without the means to be able to exercise that right? Can we not all agree that is not what a right should be? Can we agree that if you exclude a segment of the population it becomes discrimination?Close

As one of our founding fathers, James Madison, stated so eloquently: “The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority.” We need to make sure that we remember that we have to take care of the rights of all the people —even those we may not agree with— but if it’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution (our highest law of the land) then we should do everything in our power to make sure we do not discriminate against any group, majority or minority.

So why do I bring this up and use the right to vote as an example? Because this is exactly what some legislators are trying to do to the Second Amendment. They want to charge an additional tax on firearms and ammunition. They want to add fees to getting a permit to own or carry a firearm (requiring a license to own a firearm is already unconstitutional in my opinion). The latest stroke of infringement is to outlaw private sales of firearms and require all sales to go through a federally-licensed firearms dealer (FFL). This would add a “transfer fee” to every purchase of a firearm. Regardless, if it was from a FFL or a private citizen. While these things are wrong on so many levels, let’s get back to the basics of a right. Making that right out of reach for any group of people.

Firearms are not cheap but you can get them fairly inexpensively if you look around. What possible way can taxing or adding a fee to firearms and firearms transactions stop any type of firearms crime? It can’t. That’s ludicrous, of course. And by adding a fee or tax to own or possess a firearm (other than the cost of the firearm itself and maybe regular sales tax) they are trying to limit the rights of all people who are of a certain demographic, in this case the very people who are most prone to crime and need the ability to defend themselves.

Many cry discrimination and racism about many things, but those that make our laws and try to restrict your rights this way are some of the biggest culprits. So a word of advice or warning to our legislators who are thinking of this way of restricting a right that all law abiding Americans should be able to exercise: You cannot tax a right out of existence; the people will not stand for it.

Folks, pay attention to your state and federal representatives and what they are trying to do or pass. Stay up to date on your state‘s legislative sessions and the bills being discussed and submitted. Most of all, make your voice heard! Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, trying to remove rights should be a time you come together and make sure that those in positions to make laws know your feelings.

Originally published on http://www.opslens.com

Is Requiring a Fee to Exercise a Right Constitutional?

I think regardless of what political party you belong to we can probably all agree that requiring a fee to exercise a right is just wrong, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

Let’s take voting for instance. We all can agree being able to vote is a right. The right to vote is mentioned 5 times in the Constitution. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments speak of voting specifically. So it’s agreed that it’s a right. So what if we required a few things in order to be able to exercise it?

Well I think that requiring someone prove who they are, and that they are a US citizen, is not to much to ask right? Everyone can do that regardless of economic status, and it will not prevent anyone from voting. Right? But what if we added a $100 “voting” tax? Just something to make a little extra money for the government. Not a big deal right? WHAT? Wait! If you add a fee to exercise a right does that not put that right out of the reach of some people who may be economically challenged? That makes that fee discriminatory against that demographic of people. We can’t have that, how can we add fees to exercising a right and make it hard or impossible for people without the means to be able to exercise that right? Can we not all agree that is not what a right should be? Can we agree that if you exclude a segment of the population it becomes discrimination?

As one of our founding fathers, James Madison, stated so eloquently: “The purpose of the Constitution is to restrict the majority’s ability to harm a minority.” We need to make sure that we remember that we have to take care of the rights of all the people, even those we may not agree with, but if it’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution (our highest law of the land) then we should do everything in our power to make sure we do not discriminate against any group, majority or minority.

So why do I bring this up and use the right to vote as an example? Because this is exactly what some legislators are trying to do to the 2nd Amendment. They want to charge an additional tax on firearms and ammunition. They want to add fees to getting a permit to own or carry a firearm (requiring a license to own a firearm is already unconstitutional in my opinion) and the latest to outlaw private sales of firearms and require all sales to go through a federally licensed firearms dealer. This would add a “transfer fee” to every purchase of a firearm. Regardless if it was from a FFL or a private citizen. While these things are wrong on so many levels, let’s get back to the basics of a right. Making that right out of reach for any group of people.

Firearms are not cheap but you can get them fairly inexpensively if you look around. What possible way can taxing or adding a fee to firearms and firearms transactions stop any type of firearms crime? It can’t, that’s ludicrous of course. And by adding a fee or tax to own or possess a firearm (other than the cost of the firearm itself and maybe regular sales tax) they are trying to limit the rights of all people who are of a certain demographic, in this case the very people who are most prone to crime and need the ability to defend themselves.

So a word of advice or warning to our legislators who are thinking of this way of restricting a right that ALL law abiding Americans should be able to exercise. Many cry discrimination and racism about many things, but those that make our laws and try to restrict your rights this way are some of the biggest culprits.

Pay attention to your state and federal Represenatives and what they are trying to do or pass. Stay up to date on your states legislative sessions and the Bills being discussed and submitted. Most of all make your voice heard! Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, trying to remove rights should be a time you come together and make sure that those in positions to make laws know your feelings.

You cannot tax a right out of existence, the people will not stand for it.

Florida’s attempt at adding fees – http://bit.ly/2AuuuTV

A few Federal Attempts – http://bit.ly/2Aopyjm & http://bit.ly/2AqUPlY

Mandatory background checks and restricted private sales in store for Florida gun owners, nationwide?

How do you get mandatory background checks on ALL firearms sales, including private sales without passing a background check law? You regulate the sales themselves. But like many firearms related proposed gun laws, this has nothing to do with reducing crime or saving lives. It is simply an emotionally driven do nothing law that will cost law-abiding citizens (they are the only ones that will follow it) money they should not have to spend.

Here is something I want you to think about while reading this article: What percentage of criminals who used firearms in crimes got their guns from private sales to include gun shows? I will answer that later on here.

After the Parkland School murders there was an outcry for ‘more gun control” from many groups. Even though the murderer in that case was already illegally possessing and using the firearm in a prohibited place and committing murder. A push for more laws, new laws was heard nationwide. This is called an emotional response to a non-existent problem. That’s right, looking to pass laws that would have zero effect on a mass murderer is basically doing something just to say they did something. So in Florida they raised the age for anyone to buy a long gun (rifle or shotgun) from 18 to 21. They banned bump-stocks (documented to have been used in one crime nationwide), created a “red flag” law to remove guns from citizens who have been accused of mental illness, and on a positive note, they created armed school safety officers.

Now even after doing all that Representative Margaret Good, (D) Sarasota, submitted on December 21st, 2018 a Bill (HB 135) in Florida that as described on the Florida House website: “Requires transfers of firearms when neither party is licensed dealer to be conducted through licensed dealer & requires processing by licensed dealer”. This bill wants to require any sale of a firearm to go through a federally licensed firearms dealer, requiring a background check processing, and a fee on top of the cost of the firearm itself. Anyone who would violate this would be committing a felony. So just exactly what problem does this address? What criminals are they trying to target by making all sales of firearms, even private ones, go through a firearms dealer and requiring a fee?

Back to my statement earlier that I wanted you to think about while reading this: “What percentage of criminals who used firearms in crimes got their guns from private sales to include gun shows?” The Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997-2004” found that 0.8% (that’s less than one percent) of criminals bought their firearms at a gun show. Also they found that about 12% bought or traded for the firearm with a family member or friend. Just how would this new proposed law stop that from happening? Who in their right mind thinks for one minute that a criminal that wants to acquire a firearm will go through any kind of sale that requires a background check? Anyone that thinks that is just kidding themselves. What that same survey found was that in over 77% of the cases the criminals obtained their firearms illegally anyway. And this new law is supposed to stop that?

This is the problem with the “gunsense” or “guncontrolnow” movements. They continually try and pass more and more laws restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to purchase, possess and carry firearms, since they are the only ones that will follow any new laws. Criminals as the name implies do not follow laws. We outlawed many drugs and just see how well that has stopped the illegal drug trade right?

I alluded earlier that the firearms crisis is not really a crisis. Many who have been fed the sensationalized headlines of the anti-right mainstream media will become apoplectic at this statement. But all one has to do is look at the facts (numbers) to see it. According to the FBI’s annual report “2017 Crime in the United States” murders with a firearm declined 1.4% from 2016 to 2017. This includes a 2.4% decrease in murders using a handgun. The NRA-ILA ran the numbers and found “Murders involving a rifle of any kind increased 6.6% due to the horrific attacks in Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs. Outside of those two attacks, the number of rifle murders decreased 15.9%. The number of people killed with their attacker’s fists, hands, or feet increased 4%. There were 696 people killed in such a manner – more than 72% more than killed with a rifle of any kind.” Yes you read that correctly, more people are killed by hands and feet than by rifles in any given year. Looking over a preliminary study of 2018 crime numbers from police departments in the 30 largest U.S. cities projected the 2018 murder rate to be 7.6% lower than the 2017 rate. That’s right down not up, you would never believe that given the way the news media feeds the hysteria nationally.

What about other violent crimes where guns may be used? Robbery decreased from 332,797 in 2016 to 319,356 in 2017. Down 4% overall. Robberies that used a firearm were down 5.4%.

So just what are these background check, gun storage, sales, age restrictions, banning of certain firearms supposed to accomplish? Murder and firearms victimizations are already much lower than 25 years ago, by >45%, in the number of murders nationwide. We already have over 30,000 gun laws on the books, not to mention laws against firearms being on school grounds, federal laws against certain people possessing firearms, and of course not to be forgotten that MURDER is already illegal and carries some of the stiffest penalties in the nation (as it should).

So I challenge anyone that supports more gun laws or restrictions on citizens possessing firearms. Please explain in simple language just how any of these new laws will stop a murderer bent on killing someone. Taking away guns will not work, they will just get them on the black market and remove the ability of law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves from these criminals. I contend that any more restrictions on firearms ownership and possession will only result in more victims. Why and how you ask? Because you will be removing the firearms from those that follow the law, not break it, making them unarmed helpless victims to those who care less what laws you make.

So what should we do you ask? I say allow law abiding citizens to carry lawful firearms at places that are now designated “gun free zones” since they really are only “law abiding citizen self-defense restricted areas” now anyway. Murderers call these areas “target rich” environments. We have seen how well those areas stop attacks and murderers. Stop putting more restrictions on those who follow the law. Enhance penalties on crimes already on the books committed with a firearm, maybe actually prosecute those who break the federal firearms laws already on the books. Better mental health treatment and evaluation for those that need it. Hold people responsible for their actions, including kids and young adults. Hold criminals accountable, hold parents responsible for their kids. Enough is enough. Stop blaming things that have no bearing on the results. Freedom is not pretty or safe, it’s actually not supposed to be, it’s supposed to make you appreciate when you have it, and yearn for it when you don’t.

AFT rules “bump stocks” are now “machine guns” and illegal to own.

So it has started. The Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker announced yesterday that the Department of Justice has amended the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), stating that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law.

What I find really sad is that the AG and group received 119,264 comments in support of the new rule and only 66,182 comments were received that opposed the rule. Of those that opposed it, over 40,000 were form letter submitted by National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) on behalf of its members. A little over 25,000 submitted by individuals. That is just downright sad. That Americans who believe in the right to bear arms, and did not see this ruling for what it was, the first step in more to come, could not be bothered enough to send in a comment? All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.

Many that did comment made many valid points that the “Department” responded to. One of the most interesting that I read was the argument that if bump stocks are made illegal then other things that can accomplish the same type of firing of a firearm must be made illegal also, such as rubber bands, belt loops and even just trigger fingers. The Departments response was very interesting:

The Department has detailed in the NPRM and this rule the distinction between bump firing with a bump-stock-type device and using belt loops or rubber bands. Although a shooter using a belt loop, string, or other manual method utilizes recoil energy to bump fire, the shooter is responsible for constraining the firearm, maintaining the correct finger pressure, and regulating the force necessary to fire continuously. This is clearly distinguishable from a bump-stock-type device, as ATF has explained that such a device functions “as a self-acting and self-regulating force that channels the firearm’s recoil energy in a continuous back-and-forth cycle that allows the shooter to attain continuous firing after a single pull of the trigger so long as the trigger finger remains stationary on the device’s extension ledge.

Does that make any sense to anyone other than maybe the ATF?

So what will this new rule cost you? That’s right even if you don’t own a bump stock, it will cost you. Well, first there is the cost to the Government (You the taxpayer) as stated in the new rule “ATF estimates the total undiscounted cost of this rule at $312.1 million over 10 years.” So they are instituting a rule that very few if any will follow, and it will cost the taxpayers 312 MILLION dollars!

Then there is the not so small fact that the ATF estimates “the number of bump-stock-type devices held by the public could range from about 280,000 to about 520,000“. And they estimate the value of these at about $139,000,000. Meaning they are going to cost the public in personal property over 139 million! Now just how does the ATF propose that all of these new illegal devices be accounted for?

You see again we must look at simple history for things like this. NJ enacted a high capacity magazine ban about a year ago, and they called for owners of them to destroy them or turn them in or face becoming felons. Guess what happened? No one turned any in. Simply put it’s an unenforceable law that does nothing but make law abiding citizens into felons and accomplishes nothing for public safety. In other words a complete waste of time, money and effort. Typical for our government these days.

So to those who think that we should make felons out of more than 280-520,000 Americans because of the actions of one evil murderer, you just got your wish. But even though I do not own a bump stock myself (and would tell you anyway if I did) I think you are a bunch of idiots. If that is the rationale used then why did we not outlaw box cutters when they were improperly used to kill not hundreds but thousands? You can’t answer that so don’t even try, you will look foolish.

To those who do own a bump stock, the Government has deemed you unable to act like lawful Americans that you are, you are a criminal and felon 90 days from now. If you fail to destroy or turn in your bump stock, you are violating this new rule and federal laws. But then again, they have no idea you have it, they cannot come to your home and search it without cause and a warrant (we at least still have that right for now) and like in NJ, when no one turns any of these in, and no one destroys them (except for a few who probably got them second hand to do it for publicity) we will all see this new rule for what it was, the possible start of more restrictions and laws to make law-abiding firearms owners into criminals.

Have we just gotten closer to that “Crossroad” I was speaking of in my last article? I think so, and I think the anti-rights and government are driving us faster and faster in that direction.

You can read the new rule, the public comments (summarized) and related things here: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks