I am Afraid for my Country and the Younger Generation.

I am afraid for my country and the younger generation.

We were a country of laws and people who are known for being self-sufficient, self-reliant, strong and inventive. We led the world in inventions and creativeness. We are known the world over for being a “free” country. Why do you think the US has so many people trying to come here to live?

But now all I see and hear on our media, and on the internet, social media platforms and more are calls for a reduction of that freedom. We have been doing just fine for decades. Murder has been going down by double digits.(Check the DOJ Statistics), we have seen a reduction in all types of violent crime. Why is that? I am sure there are many reasons. But none of those reasons is because we have reduced peoples rights.

Now people are having an emotional reaction to the murder in Las Vegas. I understand completely. Having held people as they die and take their last breath, I know death. Having investigated fatal car crashes for years as a LEO, I had to tell more than one family of the death of their loved one. I know the pain and anguish these types of things cause. No one wants to see or have to experience any more of them. But therein lies the issue.

You cannot regulate or legislate murder or evil away. You can’t stop these shootings from happening. They happen and will continue to happen regardless of laws or limits we place on inanimate objects. Because when you think you have figured out how to stop the next mass killing, the killers use a car, or truck or plane. We had 59 people killed, murdered by guns. Not in Las Vegas but in Chicago in the month of Sept. Yet we heard nothing on the national level about that. Why because it does not play into the emotional attack that people need to try and take away your rights “for the good of all”.

Think about this statement for a minute, “You cannot make people safer by taking away the things that make them safe.” Regulating firearms any more than they are, or limiting any of the currently available firearms. In fact, there is only one thing that will deter or prevent the next murderer from attacking a target. If you knew of a pending attack. And could not stop it but only make it less likely to succeed or reduce the number of casualties what would you do? Provide more armed security? More law enforcement presence? Why? because they carry firearms. And the only way to stop an armed attacker is by an armed response. Why in the world do you think cops carry firearms? Because it’s a deterrent and needed to respond to armed attackers. Pretty simple. So what makes anyone with half a brain think that taking any firearms away from the law-abiding citizens of this great country will make them safer?

When there is any threat to the safety of our people in this country how do we make them safer? We post armed security or LE. While it would not have stopped the Las Vegas Murderer because of the positioning and location were chosen.

Here is my recommendation to reduce the number of mass murders involving firearms, and you have not heard it anywhere else yet. Instead of making it harder to purchase firearms by law-abiding citizens, make it easier. Allow people to carry a firearm concealed or openly if they choose, nationwide. Gun free zones? Outlaw them, except for certain specific places. Create a National Carry law that allows law-abiding citizens to carry concealed or openly nationwide. Instead of outlawing things that will not affect criminals one single bit, allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. For once realize that the vast majority of people in this country are good decent law-abiding people, and we should not let the very few cause us to regulate the rights of the majority.

God Bless the United States and its people.

Advertisements

Abolish the 2nd Amendment! Can People Really be That Stupid?

I find it frightening that there is such an outcry from some people that in the wake of the tragic mass murder in Las Vegas, they want to automatically cry for the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment and stripping away of the rights of US Citizens. Do they not know the consequences of such actions?
2017-10-02_15-28-17
It pains me to hear American Citizens talk like this. It makes it clearly obvious they have no clue why we have the Bill of Rights, and especially the 2nd Amendment itself. They show a complete lack of history, and have no clue what very well could happen in this country should we lose our rights.
First and foremost the Constitution and Bill of Rights was not designed to make anyone safer or keep any type of crime from happening. It was written to codify the restrictions our forefathers wanted to place on the newly forming United States Government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a document restricting what the government can do, not restricting what people, companies or private organizations can do. It is there to keep the government from stepping on people’s rights and basically becoming a tyrannical system.
2017-10-02_15-28-52
The people of the US need to learn a little bit about history of our own country and others as well before they start to call for disarming the general public. During our own Revolutionary War, one of the main reasons besides taxes and representation in English parliament was that the British recognized the colonists would use their weapons to defend themselves, so they made efforts to confiscate as many weapons as they could. The seizing of weapons was the primary instigation of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the Revolution. These battles erupted when the British were trying to capture the colonists’ weapons and ammunition stores at Concord.
The founding fathers realized that the only way that they could ever hope to defend themselves against the crown was for free men to own and possess firearms to be able to fight back against the tyrannical Government of England.2017-10-02_15-29-11
As the new US Government was being formed, the men writing the new Constitution realized that they did not want a repeat of the issues they had with England ruling them, so they wrote into the Constitution protections against the government being too powerful and being the only one with arms and a standing army. The idea was that if the US Government was the only one with weapons, then what would be there to stop them from forcing whatever they wanted on the citizens. The only way that the citizens of the US could ever hope of defeating the US Military would be in numbers of men and arms. That is why they wrote the 2nd Amendment, to protect the people of the United States from its own government. They were smart enough to realize you could not vote out a government that ruled by force, force would be the only way to bring about change.
2017-10-02_15-30-05
There are many examples of governments removing the right of the people to bear arms and the resulting bloodshed it created. One of the most well-known is the National Socialist Party in Germany. In 1931 they required citizens to register their firearms with the government. In 1933, the Nazi’s, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.” And history tells us the results. Millions dead, concentration camps, and World War II.2017-10-02_15-31-49
In 1917 the Soviet Union was born out of the Bolshevik Revolution. Frustrated at the current Czar, armed Russian peasants led by Marxist Vladimir Lenin rebelled against the czar and won, establishing the Soviet era. But in 1929 private gun ownership in the Soviet Union was abolished. That is when the regime of Stalin began to gain power and because the people no longer had a means to fight back, millions were killed, put into prisons or otherwise just executed because they opposed the government. Gun control worked for him.
2017-10-03_11-35-40
China has some of the strictest gun regulation in the world. The Provisional Measures on Firearms Control were published on June 27, 1951 and then altered and made even stricter in 1981 with the introduction of the Measures on Firearms Control. That was in turn replaced with an even stricter set of laws called the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Firearms Control of 1996. Basically it is forbidden to own firearms by individuals in China. Why do you think the government is able to maintain power and rule as aI find it frightening that there is such an outcry from some people that in the wake of the tragic mass murder in Las Vegas, they want to automatically cry for the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment and stripping away of the rights of US Citizens. Do they not know the consequences of such actions?
2017-10-03_11-36-05
It pains me to hear American Citizens talk like this. It makes it clearly obvious they have no clue why we have the Bill of Rights, and especially the 2nd Amendment itself. They show a complete lack of history, and have no clue what very well could happen in this country should we lose our rights.
2017-10-03_11-53-00
First and foremost the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not designed to make anyone safer or keep any type of crime from happening. It was written to codify the restrictions our forefathers wanted to place on the newly forming United States Government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is a document restricting what the government can do, not restrict what people, companies or private organizations can do. It is there to keep the government from stepping on people’s rights and basically becoming a tyrannical system.
2017-10-03_11-55-42
The people of the US need to learn a little bit about the history of our own country and others as well before they start to call for disarming the general public. During our own Revolutionary War, one of the main reasons besides taxes and representation in English parliament was that the British recognized the colonists would use their weapons to defend themselves, so they made efforts to confiscate as many weapons as they could. The seizing of weapons was the primary instigation of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the Revolution. These battles erupted when the British were trying to capture the colonists’ weapons and ammunition stores at Concord.
The founding fathers realized that the only way that they could ever hope to defend themselves against the crown was for free men to own and possess firearms to be able to fight back against the tyrannical Government of England.
2017-10-03_11-57-43
As the new US Government was being formed, the men writing the new Constitution realized that they did not want a repeat of the issues they had with England ruling them, so they wrote into the Constitution protections against the government being too powerful and being the only one with arms and a standing army. The idea was that if the US Government was the only one with weapons, then what would be there to stop them from forcing whatever they wanted on the citizens. The only way that the citizens of the US could ever hope of defeating the US Military would be in numbers of men and arms. That is why they wrote the 2nd Amendment, to protect the people of the United States from its own government. They were smart enough to realize you could not vote out a government that ruled by force, force would be the only way to bring about change.
There are many examples of governments removing the right of the people to bear arms and the resulting bloodshed it created. One of the most well-known is the National Socialist Party in Germany. In 1931 they required citizens to register their firearms with the government. In 1933, the Nazi’s, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.” And history tells us the results. Millions dead, concentration camps, and World War II.
In 1917 the Soviet Union was born out of the Bolshevik Revolution. Frustrated at the current Czar, armed Russian peasants led by Marxist Vladimir Lenin rebelled against the czar and won, establishing the Soviet era. But in 1929 private gun ownership in the Soviet Union was abolished. That is when the regime of Stalin began to gain power, and because the people no longer had a means to fight back, millions were killed, put into prisons or otherwise just executed because they opposed the government. Gun control worked for him.
China has some of the strictest gun regulation in the world. The Provisional Measures on Firearms Control were published on June 27, 1951, and then altered and made even stricter in 1981 with the introduction of the Measures on Firearms Control. That was in turn replaced with an even stricter set of laws called the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Firearms Control of 1996. Basically, it is forbidden to own firearms by individuals in China. Why do you think the government is able to maintain power and rule as a communist party? Because the people cannot fight back without arms.
There are many more examples, but I will not list them, space does not permit it. The second reason for the second amendment was the right of the people to be able to defend themselves and to be able to provide food for their families. Both of which hold true today. Hunting is a huge sport in America. One with a long tradition and history. I like to hunt, to provide healthy, non-commercially grown meats for my family. Rather than eat the only store bought meat (which if you have ever research how it is raised or slaughtered you may never eat it again) I choose to provide natural, healthy meats. Now I cannot provide all of the meat we need, and we still have to buy store meat, but at least we eat some healthy meats.
And probably the second most important reason for the second amendment is for self-protection. Next, to protect our country from ever becoming a government that is tyrannical or murderous in nature, self-defense is a right of all people. To be able to be free from the threat of harm or injury. To be able to defend oneself if that threat ever arises is paramount to a healthy society. The ability to be able to defend ones home against invasion, or one’s own person or family against physical attack, is one that predates our own Constitution. I hear people say they rely on the police for protection. When I ask what do they do while waiting for the police (who by some strange circumstance wear and use guns) they simply shrug, or say pray, or “hope” they are not killed or injured.
As a 35+ year law enforcement officer, and full-time trainer of our police, I will be the first to tell you do not rely on the police for your protection. They are reactive in their very nature. They do not find crime before or during it happening most of the time. Most of the time it’s after the crime is over, and they respond to take a report and clean up the aftermath. Very rarely do the police get to actually catch the bad guy in the act. It does happen but all too infrequently. I am not willing to risk my life or the life of my family on their response. And if I will not do it, as one of them myself, you should definitely not do it.
What kind of arms should citizens have access to? Any kind they want and can afford. The Constitution was written for all time periods, through our entire history as a country, not for just the beginning. It is what protects the people from the Government we let govern us. And should a time ever come (and no I am not suggesting that time is now) that the people need to change the government back to what it was, a government of the people, for the people, by the people, then you can’t do it by harsh words and unarmed protests. And you can’t protect yourself from an armed or violent attacker with a cell phone and dialing 911.
So be careful those of you asking for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. If you get it, you may get more than you bargained for and if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.communist party? Because the people cannot fight back without arms.
There are many more examples but I will not list them, space does not permit it. The second reason for the second amendment was the right of the people to be able to defend for themselves and to be able to provide food for their families. Both of which hold true today. Hunting is a huge sport in America. One with a long tradition and history. I myself like to hunt, to provide healthy, non-commercially grown meats for my family. Rather than eat only store bought meat (which if you have ever research how it is raised or slaughtered you may never eat it again) I choose to provide natural healthy meats. Now I cannot provide all of the meat we need, and we still have to buy store meat, but at least we eat some healthy meats.
And probably the second most important reason for the second amendment is for self-protection. Next to protecting our country from ever becoming a government that is tyrannical or murderous in nature, self-defense is a right of all people. To be able to be free from threat of harm or injury. To be able to defend oneself if that threat ever arises, is paramount to a healthy society. The ability of being able to defend ones home against invasion, or one’s own person or family against physical attack, is one that predates our own Constitution. I hear people say they rely on the police for protection. When I ask what do they do while waiting for the police (who by some strange circumstance wear and use guns) they simply shrug, or say pray, or “hope” they are not killed or injured.
As a 35+ year law enforcement officer, and full time trainer of our police, I will be the first to tell you do not rely on police for your protection. They are reactive in their very nature. They do not find crime before or during it happening most of the time. Most of the time it’s after the crime is over, and they respond to take a report and clean up the aftermath. Very rarely do the police get to actually catch the bad guy in the act. It does happen but all too infrequently. I am not willing to risk my life, or the life of my family on their response. And if I will not do it, as one of them myself, you should definitely not do it.
What kind of arms should citizens have access to? Any kind they want and can afford. The Constitution was written for all time periods, through our entire history as a country, not for just the beginning. It is what protects the people from the Government we let govern us. And should a time ever come (and no I am not suggesting that time is now) that the people need to change the government back to what it was, a government of the people, for the people, by the people, then you can’t do it by harsh words and unarmed protests. And you can’t protect yourself from an armed or violent attacker with a cell phone and dialing 911.
So be careful those of you asking for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. If you get it, you may get more than you bargained for and if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

The Right to Peacefully Protest is a Right for All

“I consider myself a reasonable person. One who believes in letting people do pretty much anything as long as it does not harm me or family.”

While I do not condone or follow the beliefs that the protestors of the “Unite the Right” protest stand for, I must say that I do support their right to peacefully protest. What a lot of people do not seem to understand is that the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee was specifically designed for speech that may be unpopular or disliked by many. It was a way our forefathers thought of protecting those who might speak out against things like government, the state, or even the very things they were trying to work for.

Read the rest at the link!

“Innocent Until Proven Guilty”, or at Least it Should be!

“One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.”

For a second time, a Florida Judge has ruled that the recent change to the Florida “Use of Force Statue” is unconstitutional. Florida is well known for its original use of force statute that was errantly called “Stand Your Ground” even though the law that was talked about is much more than those three words. The actual title of the law is “Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.
When the law passed, the Florida Courts made a change to the law in procedural law, by requiring a person who uses self-defense to prove in a hearing before any criminal trial, that they used force in self-defense. So, in other words, you had to have a hearing and prove to the court that you used force in self-defense, BEFORE you are charged with criminal charges, and the burden of proof rested on the defendant, not the State. Now I am not a lawyer, nor am I a Judge, but even I know that the US judicial system was set up so that the State must prove you are guilty of a crime and not the other way around.
I never heard anyone say the court system was supposed to be set up so that a person when accused of a crime by the State, had to prove their innocence. I have a little bit of experience in being in court, having arrested several thousand people over the last 35 years. But one thing That I always knew was that it was my job, and the job of the State Attorney to prove a person I had arrested was guilty of what I charged them with “beyond a reasonable doubt.”. It has always been the government’s job to prove guilt and not the citizen’s job to prove their innocence. The 6th Amendment in the American Constitution guarantees an individual the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial. The 6th Amendment also enables an individual to have legal assistance, regardless of the charge, and the right to confront adverse witnesses and notice of accusations. These rights are given to all men or women under trial for any wrongdoing. They establish the “innocent until proven guilty” mantra that is present in the United States legal system. It is a corner stone of our legal system. Cornell’s Law School defines this principle as this;

“One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.”

So when the Florida Courts mandated a hearing where the citizen had to prove their innocence, you can imagine that it did not sit well with the men and women that wrote the laws of the state of Florida. And many have said that it was a violation of the very basic principles of our Constitution. So the law makers in Florida decided to right what they saw as a wrong by the COUrts and wrote a change to the current law that simply requires that instead of the citizen having to prove their innocence that the State has to prove they did not use force in self-defense. This is as it should have been all along. In fact many think the hearing that you have to have to claim self-defense in and of itself is not right and a violation of the 6th Amendment. So the lawmakers changed it.
Well, it seems that the Judges and Courts in Florida do not like to be corrected or told they are doing something wrong. So in two recent cases, local Judges in the Miami area (this should not surprise anyone coming from that area of the state) have ruled that the new procedure that follows the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution is unconstitutional. Now you try to figure that one out.
While I am sure that these cases will ultimately end up before the Florida Supreme Court for a final ruling, until then maybe we should just follow the current laws and US Constitutional Amendments? Wouldn’t that be a novel idea?
I know from talking to many people in the legal field, including Assistant U.S. Attorney’s, State Prosecutors and Public Defenders, they are all for following the 6th Amendment. Many have expressed a desire to do away completely with the pretrial hearing as it strikes them as being almost a double jeopardy issue, having to prove the guilt or innocence more than once.
So I offer my layman’s solution to this entire ordeal. If someone uses force and claims self-defense, then if the state thinks that they did not have a legal self-defense use or violated a law, they charge them and put them on trial for that crime. If they cannot prove the citizen committed a crime, then they do not charge the person, and they are free. That is the way it has been for a couple of hundred years now and seems to work just fine. Why are we adding more trials and hearings to a criminal proceeding?
If you use force in self-defense in Florida, it is still currently the law that the State must prove you did not use it legally in self-defense, not your responsibility to prove you did. As it should have been and should always be. The Use of Force law is very easy to understand if you simply read them and try to understand them. They are not overly wordy, easy to understand, and quite clear. Here is a previous article of mine that helps to explain it a bit.
All I can say is good luck to those Judges in Miami who think following the US Constitution is Unconstitutional. But then again they are Judges in Miami of all places.

“Everytown for Gun Safety” Group is Misleading the Public With Bogus Stats!

“So the next time you hear someone say what an “epidemic” we are having of shootings you tell them they are full of it and being misled by the media and groups who are spending millions on propaganda and not facts.”

I spend a lot of time reading and researching. Many of the things I read are studies on death and injuries in the United States. My sources are usually federally based, since relying on private groups often leads to getting information that is slanted to fit their agenda.

So it is not surprising that information derived from the “Everytown for Gun Safety” group, and others like it, tend to bend and misstate numbers to suit their agendas. My agenda is simple. I believe every American has a right to freedom, to choose how to live, how to express themselves and the right to defend themselves. When you go to Everytown’s website you are immediately hit with numbers and graphics that make several bold, anti-gun claims.

Read the rest here…

City of Ferguson Caves, Agrees to Pay Settlement to Parents of Michael Brown Despite Lawful Police Shooting

Only in today’s lefty courts of America can an attempted murderer’s parents profit from their adult son’s criminal actions and death.

I have seen and heard many things in my three decades as a cop, plus my military time. However, I recently heard that Michael Brown’s parents settled a lawsuit against the city of Ferguson for their son’s death.

These are the same parents of an 18-year-old adult who attacked and arguably tried to seriously injure or kill a police officer. The police officer was cleared in the shooting, as it was ruled justified. Yet even though justified and found lawful, the officer had to quit and move out of town for the safety of his own family. These are the same parents who, after the shooting incited violence, said, “Let’s burn this m——- down.”

Read the rest here.

It Takes a Good Guy With a Gun to Stop a Bad Guy With a Gun

“Law enforcement is reactionary by its very nature — remember, they come when you call, but you have to be able to call them.”

As news unfolded last week in this country, many things got splashed across our television screens and repeated over and over again. If the story is one of death or terror, it usually gets plenty of airtime and lots of print. A perfect example is the very newsworthy shooting at the Republican softball practice. A lunatic, left wing fringe ‘wanna-be killer’ tried to target unarmed and defenseless Congress members. It got the press time it deserved.

The attempted murder of our Congress members was stopped by two armed plain clothes police officers assigned as dignitary protection to one of the present members. Even after being wounded, they continued to engage the gunman. They were both transported to the hospital, and the gunman later died from his injuries. The other present members of Congress were fortunate the police officers had been assigned as protection.

Read the rest here.