NATIONAL GUARD SHOULD CONTROL GUN OWNERSHIP

The cry that it is their Constitutional right to own a gun is just pain hooey. Everyone knows it is just industrial propaganda but they also know they can do nothing about it. What is the solution? “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Isn’t it about time we read and apply the “Second Amendment” to our daily lives. Read the second amendment; the governors of the each state not only have the Constitutional right, but he or she also has the Constitutional obligation, to organize a “well regulated militia” in their states to protect the people of that state. The governor of each state has the right to collect taxes to pay for and to recruit every able-bodied person to join the state National Guard and have experts trained him or her to use weapons issue to him or her by the state, which is the constitution right the Founding Father intended. Of course, protection includes protection from gun violence. The Constitution says nothing to limit this “right” to protecting a state from a foreign invader; when the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution they were referring to neighboring states in the new Federation as well as foreign invaders. Can anyone doubt that we as a nation are not suffering from gun violence? Can anyone doubt that we need protection from our neighbors who have grossly distorted the meaning of this amendment? It is not a birthright to own a gun. It is not a Constitutional Right to own a gun. No matter how you read them, charts of statistics reveal the stunning truth of this resulting from how the deliberate misreading has distorted that amendment. We need protection from the arms manufacturers, who have bought, paid, and cajoled Congress to do their bidding. We need the government to license each of every 370 million guns, with no license ever permitted for assault weapons, grenade launchers, etc. It should be illegal to own a gun without a license, which is just pain and simple logic. Not one state I know of in the Union uses the National Guard to protect its people from gun violence. We all know that laws can regulate firearms so the concept of laws controlling guns is not new. Many states have laws that regulate gun ownership and set statutory laws related to gun ownership, selling guns, the right to open-carry, as well as laws relating to where it is permissible to carry guns. As it is now, FBI, ATF, and local police enforce these laws not by the National Guard. What I am suggesting is that gun regulation should be the obligation of the National Guard under the control of a governor we can vote for or against and not under the NRA as it is now. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

ANDERSON COOPER DID ROTTEN JOB

I was shocked at the inapt job Anderson Cooper did monitoring the Presidents gun control town hall. He clearly was trying to provoke the President. In addition, every one of the questions negative to the point I felt it was intentional to have it that way. I disagree with the President’s velvet glove approach to the problem of gun violence. There are 32,000 deaths per year with roughly 30 percent suicide and 3 percent accidents. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that in every case of gun violence there is a gun involved. The only solution is gun control with strict control of gun ownership. There are 270,000,000 guns in the United States; of course, gun use will be out of control. Unlike the President, I often think of the Second Amendment as being intentional misread. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” How can anyone read this an interpret it to mean every Tom, Dick, and Harry can own a gun and that the government cannot define what the word ‘gun” means. Read the damn thing. The current interpretation is so irrational it is asinine. To think a person who owns a gun is “a militia” is extremely stupid. A state militia exists as an organ of the state because every state has the right to protect itself from other states within the “Federation of States”, which was a well-known concern of the governments of the 13 new states at that time. It has nothing to do with individual gun ownership, which is a product of the NRA propaganda intended to sell more guns. The NRA has coward our Congress in mass. If you are an NRA member, you should be ashamed to be part of that. As the President recognized, the gun lobby has threatened vulnerable members with election challenges, which can be a powerful tool with unlimited money. As the old saying goes, “congress is bought and paid for!” The President has apparently decided the only way to get anything done is to start small. He is probably right; however, I feel very strongly the government should license every gun. Here is where I would get tough. If the ATF or FBI goes home to license their guns and if the owners use their guns to resist, as many of the so-called tough guys claim they would, shoot them. Of course, the authorities would license sports equipment without question while the ATF would confiscate all assault rifles, bazookas, grenade launchers, etc. The problem of who is a criminal and who is not would filter its self out, starting with the shooting of those who would not comply with these rules. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

OBAMA AND GUNS

The word on the street is that President Obama is going to issue an executive order today to initial gun control. This is sure to ignite a firestorm started and fueled by the irrational radical right. Along with abortion, gun control is a signature issue of this group. The missing element in all of their arguments is ‘rationality’. Many of my relatives are among this group. Some of them have college degrees. Somehow, they seem to feel that the Constitution gives them the right to have guns. In addition, they seem to think there is no difference between guns. To think a punk walking the streets in the inner city with a snub nose 38 is the same as a kid carrying a 22 rifle while hunting rabbits. They seem to think no one can tell the difference between an assault rifle and a 12-gage shotgun. In their mind, it is rational to have an assault rifle under you pillow. I support President Obama, and say to you gun nuts; go to hell. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

GUN CONTROL CRAZIES

Why is the gun control debate so crazy? How can NRA leadership support radical positions the majority of their members do not support? Why does the majority of Congress vote against what public opinion polls clearly show is not the majority opinion? Why do experienced deer hunters say they are against gun control because inspectors cannot tell the difference between a deer rifle and an assault weapon? Why do people think only crazy people with guns kill people? Are all unhappy marriages between crazy people? Are all suicide victims crazy? Are children who shoot their siblings crazy? Why have police if everyone has guns? If everyone has guns and we still have assaults with weapons, does that mean we should have bigger guns? I am ashamed to say many of my relatives are among those who post pictures of themselves with big guns or support gun ownership. The usual thing they say it is their Constitutional right but have no idea what the constitution says. Next time they say it is their right; ask them to define the word ‘militia’. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

CHECK YOUR GUN AT THE DOOR

The gun control debated reminds me of the old west as depicted by Hollywood. Cowboy patrons knew when people drink and have guns shoot is apt to start over any and every argument and people die. The owners ordered patrons to check their guns at the door, which they voluntarily did. The only way to have effective gun control is to have voluntary gun control. There are two ways to approach gun control, from the top down or from the bottom up. Of course, there is the third way, which is not gun control at all which is why our streets are so dangerous. This third way is why we have such a compelling need to consider the first two ways. The bottom up way is to confiscate all guns and then allow only the people who have a legitimate use for guns to have them. The top down way is to start limiting gun ownership by preventing them from owning guns. Strangely enough, the tough guy, or cowboy, approach is the first one. By tough guy approach I mean the guys that own the big guns would be in charge of the government and force people to do what they want them to do whether they like it or not. The tough guys are the ones wearing the big white hat and are willing to judge their fellow man as to what is right and what is wrong. The proof I have of what I say is ask people what they would do if the government came to take their guns. Ask any person with an assault rifle and puts pictures him or her self on Facebook with that gun held at the ready. Ask that persons what he or she would do if someone came to their door for their gun(s). I feel 100% sure they would tell you they would die rather than allow the government to take their gun, which means the government would have to have the same attitude as they have; they must die if “we the people” are to have gun control. Does it make any sense to you that he only reason to have a gun is to keep the government from taking it away? Does any of this make sense to you? Limiting ownership is the less confrontational way to institute gun control because if disperse direct confrontations out overtime and avoids direct confrontation with gun “tough guy” owners. However, many innocent people will have to die while this happens. In addition, it does not prevent the wide distribution of guns in society. Many wimps in society are afraid of their own shadows; hence “think” they need a gun. With guns everywhere, especially handguns, accidental guns deaths will happen, children playing with a gun they found in a bedside dresser drawer for example, or impulsive use of the guns such as road rage, or a jilted lover’s suicide. From news reports down through the years, upland game bird shot guns and deer rifles are not what police find to be the weapon used in most bar shootings and these other incidents. All of this makes it clear to me that we need gun control, we need it sooner that later, and we should start by confiscating guns from criminals, domestic abuser, and the mentally challenged. In addition, we should stop the sale of guns to this same group of people with a rigidly upheld background check. The old saw that says, “If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns,” is nonsense. That logic would imply we should not outlaw bank robbery because only outlaws would rob banks. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

LOGIC OF GUNS GALORE

If we pass laws saying gun ownership is a crime, then only criminals would have guns. I have heard this argument repeatedly. Likewise, if we have laws against robbing banks, out logical conclusion would be that only criminals would rob banks. If we have gun control then “they” would take away all of out guns as if regulators could not tell the difference between guns. The most vocal people who fear this outcome are hunters who are the most qualified to tell the difference between a 30-30 rifle designed to shoot deer and an AK-47 assault rifle designed to kill people. An often-overlooked fact is that guns are involved in every incident of gun violence. Guns don’t kill people but people with guns do kill people. If we didn’t have food, then logically we would not have food fights. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy to have a gun. Never fear, it is easy to decide who is a good guy; he is the one with the gun. The way to prevent gun violence is to have more guns. The way to prevent gun violence is to have more guns. The way to prevent gun violence is to have more guns. The way to prevent gun violence is to have more guns. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

GUN CONTROL AND YOUR GREED

We have another mass shooting. This time, it happened in Oregon. The great majority of people in the United States want gun control. In fact, judging from laws around the world, the vast majority of people in the entire world want gun control. The big question is why don’t we have gun control? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the questions of why do we have taxpayer subsidies to oil companies and big farmers but can not afford food stamps, why don’t we do something about climate change, mental health, and veterans who need help but can not afford to help them. We still have a huge nuclear-powered aircraft carrier named Ronald Reagan. Why do we have trillions of dollars of debt yet no one wants to pay taxes to pay the debt? By the way, the debt was because of a war fought in Iraq by a volunteer army and we fought it with money borrowed from Chinas. How could that be? It makes no sense. The truth is, it makes no sense to a great majority of people but makes a lot of sense to not only a few rich people but also makes sense to every man, woman and child on the street. Yes. That last statement is not due to a type. It makes sense to everyone because you are not willing to step up and pay for government. In the past, I have always blamed people for not voting. The truth is that the reason is that people vote, but they vote according to their innate greed. People vote according to their narrow interest, which centers on their take home pay. We understand that nine dead and nine wounded in Oregon is nothing when compared to the gun industry making a few dollars, which is the same as the military industrial complex building aircraft carriers that cost millions and billions. That may upset you but how is that different from you voting against any politician who says they will raise taxes to pay for government. The difference is that the greed is someone else’s sin. Think of how clever Thom Tillis and Phil Berger were in North Carolina when they were leading state government. They campaigned on lowering income taxes and bringing jobs to the state. When the smoke settled, the working person pays more taxes, and the tax money goes to corporations as tax benefits. The state collects huge amounts of taxes from every dollar a worker’s spends as sales tax. Of course, workers have to spend every dollar to live. They are quick to tell you they upheld their promise! Payroll income taxes went down, and industries are moving into the state. Does anyone believe workers are paying less total taxes? Does anyone believe that we are better off as a right o work state? We know productivity is increasing, and wages are going down or staying the same, but that does not matter. It does not matter that your style of living is going down. It does not matter that you lost your job and are now working two menial level part time jobs. It does not matter that you cannot afford to go to college and even if you did there are no jobs for you. Look out on the street; entrepreneurs are forming companies that mow lawns and rake yards, or clean floors in supermarkets. Good jobs are cashiers or stacking clerks in stores. What matters is that your greed is satisfied; you “think” you pay fewer taxes than you paid before. Think about this the next time you read about a mass killing; we do not have gun control so you can take home a few dollars—only to pay sales tax on every dollar you spend on you need for your family. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

GABRIELLE GIFFORD'S STAND AGAINST GUNS

Sometimes it is a little difficult to understand my fellow man. Recently, the U.S. Navy named an Independent-class littoral combat ship (LCS) after Gabrielle Gifford, which is the 16th ship the Navy named for a woman and the 13th named for a living person. It was big news when Austal’s facility launched the LCS 10. However, what was most surprising was the nature of the comments this event evoked. In fact, the comments were more shocking in their ignorance than surprising. War is changing. The way we fight a war is changing as well. The concept of a littoral or “close to shore” combat ships is not drastic. These ships are lightweight, fast, and maneuverable but not conventionally armed but still heavily armed, also a helicopter pad. They are smaller than a standard destroyer, which is bristling with six 5-inch guns and numerous 3-inch gun turrets. Apparently, the combination of naming a ship after a gun violence victim, especially one who has been active in promoting anti-gun legislation was too much for tired old retired military brass. It provoked them to make ridiculous comments about a “combat ship with no guns” when in fact it is a heavily armed ship. Helicopters are changing the way we think about air power. Drones are a big example of a notable change in war hardware. The combination of drone helicopters is even a bigger change. Recently, we remembered the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. How would you think that event would be different if the President gave the modern Pentagon that task on June 6, 2014? Compare in your mind the difference between an aircraft carrier designed for fighter jets and one designed for helicopters. I ask these questions knowing you are not generals, admirals, or engineers schooled in design of war machines; however, I expect you would be able to provide reasonable answers to these questions because they are so basic. It is because of this I was shocked at the comments about the design of an LCS made by retired military brass. Clearly, the ship design per se is not what provoked the comments, but rather ridiculous comments are a sad commentary about Gabrielle Gifford’s stand against gun control. The right wing radical gun nuts are so low that they are not above attacking a seriously wounded female victim of gun violence. In what kind of a twisted mind would think, she would support crazy people, such as the one who shot her, owning guns. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

GUN OWNERSHIP DEBATE ERROR

I just had a “go nowhere arguments” on the internet concerning the rights and wrongs of gun ownership. It all started over a conversation about the Waco Texas shootout between motorcycle gangs. Once, I winnow out the nonsense, and there was a lot of nonsense; there were some good points made in favor of owning guns. The most salient being that the police cannot be everywhere nor can they instantaneously respond when needed. The cruel reality is that we need guns in society. We can never do away with that fact but why and for what purpose do we need guns is a question that society needs to address. Eliminate from all of those instances where we need help or assistance and very, very few instances remain where we need armed assistance. The presence of a police officer is by far usually enough. Things ranging from barking dogs to car accidents, traffic control and domestic violence do not need guns for resolution. When we add the dimension of the size of the guns and amount of ammunition needed, it rapidly reduces to the ridiculous. As an exercise, construct a list of instances in your actual lifetime where you might have a need for a gun, and you soon find there are very, very few. Of coursed, the list expands logarithmically if you put in hypothetical things such as, “what if” three armed men enter your bedroom in the middle of the night, as one of my protagonist proposed in the recent debate said. Another, perhaps the most frequent comment concerns what would you do when the government comes to take your guns away, which is a direct reflection of the radical “hate the government” individualism of those engaged in the debate. Over the years, the successes of societies in which police are not armed are proof of that. We tend to think in terms of immediacy; that is, when there is a problem why do we have to solve that problem immediately. A police officer with a big gun by shooting by wounding or killing an offender can solve a problem much quicker than one without a gun. What is clear is that two or more people in a gun fight boils down to two things: human nature and guns. For the sake of argument, if we remove the guns, what do we have? We know we had eight dead, and 18 wounded in Waco Texas, with guns, perhaps we would have had fewer dead without guns but because of chains, and clubs, etc we certainly would have seen a number of wounded and perhaps even some deaths but no where as many casualties. I asked one protagonist, what is the difference in outcome between a fistfight and a gunfight? Instead of a serious answer, I got something about me being a stupid liberal because I didn’t know about the second amendment. Perhaps this is better than having several people label me mentally ill, as they did, which several people pointed out was the normal state for liberal like me. These remarks point out the principle problem with trying to have a public debate over gun ownership, gun registration, or control of gun and magazine size. Such arguments immediately degenerate to an emotional one-sided name-calling affair aimed at gun grabbers who want to violate citizen’s second amendment rights. Gun manufacturers through the NRA promote this attitude without considering the actual needs or desires of society. They have a ready-made, highly vocal audience they cultivate because it fits the right-wing libertarian criterion of personal freedom to do anything and everything a person wants to do. Being a champion of individual rights is the same as the “no more tax” argument. Everyone is innately for these things before considering the obvious restriction that we as a society have put on it. Of course, we need government. Of course, we have to pay for it. Of course, we have individual rights but, of course, we as individuals cannot do any and everything we like. We debate these things all the time, but when it comes to gun ownership, the debate is suddenly sniffled. That is wrong. It is harmful to society. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

ELECTING A PRESIDENT

November 8, 2016

United States presidential election

As a country, our thinking about political parties has changed over the past two-hundred years or so years. In the beginning, both parties supported the formation of a federation of states. The support of individuals in anyone state was not without a wide range of disgruntlement, but the collective support of the states was obviously in support of forming a federation. The arguments ranged from wanting to retain colonial status, to the formation of as many individual countries as there were states, and to the collective security of a federation. Political parties moved from the question of, “should they shape a federation” to the idea of, “how best to construct the Federation”. My point is that both parties worked for the same objective, which was to form a great nation, which they did.

The great political division within the government then was as it is now; it was between two political philosophies, which were collectivism versus individualism. Keep in mind that they all wanted to from the best government they could. The idea of favoring individuals in government is drastically different from the political divide we have today. There is a modern movement to destroy the government in favor of 330,000,000 individuals ruling themselves. That people could believe this as a possibility is ridiculous; regardless, more and more sincerely believe this possible, which is why this presidential election is so important.

Gun ownership is an example. Ask many people why they own guns. Their first response is it is their constitutional right as individuals to protect themselves. They invoke examples of home invasion, rape, and other heinous crimes as mental images in which no one can deny the value of personal protection. They conveniently set aside reality equivalent to those asked in the cold war arms race between nations. Those doing the robbing, murdering, and raping have guns, so we “good guys” have to have more and bigger guns. We need a new world order. What our individualism, “I have a right to own a gun”, has done is created disorder that calls for restructuring social order.

As happened in the cold war, consider who is stirring up all the unrest concerning individualism but more importantly, consider why they are doing what they are doing.  If there are 330 million people running around thinking they are individuals in charge of their destiny, who is the leader. It is a throwback to the primitive caveman situation. The strongest one is in charge. In modern society, it is no longer physical strength but economic power. You are a tough gun-toting individual who wants to buy a house, so you go to the bank and ask for a loan. The bank says fine, it will cost you 10% per year interest, you will have to pledge your down payment, the collateral you have in the house, your car, and your salary to get the loan, and if you default on one payment, they will come and take it all. If you want to send your child to college, and the tuition is $50,000 per year, a student loan is essentially the same thing. OK tough individual, who is in charge? What good does your big gun do you? What does all the freedom you demanded get you? The government is not there to say to the bank that they cannot do that. My final point is simple, which is that in America, you are the government. You are collectively there to say to the banks and loan companies, and people who want to drill for oil on your land, run a pipeline through your pastures, or contaminate your drinking water, that they cannot do that. By the way, Koch brother and Sheldon Adelson are the ones that say it is OK for you to have the right to demand to own an assault rifle. Now, do you understand why Koch brothers want to spend $900 million to convince you it is OK to vote for a new president, who thinks we should have no government, but you should have individual rights? Now, do you understand why Citizen United Decision is good for them but bad for you? Perhaps, it is a tax issue. Do you think they are concerned about you saving a few dollars on your taxes? No. It is that if you starve the government it will become small enough to drown it a bathtub. Now, do you understand why that is like committing suicide?        

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE

                             Tammy Meyers, a 44-Year-Old Mother of Four Dies

A road rage incident hits the headlines when the family of a mother of four took her off life support after she had been shot in the head following the innocent act of teaching her 15-year old daughter how to drive. This story had all the elements of a good old heartbreaking cowboy style drama; an innocent white hat shot by an evil black hat forcing the loving family to face the heart rendering decision to remove her from “life” support. Then something really horrible happened; the full story revealed the truth. That story revealed what a terrible state we have generated in out society.

The women or her daughter’s error in driving offended someone in a “gray silver sedan”. The two parties exchanged words. The women went home, sent here daughter into the house to get her son with the specific instructions for him to bring his “registered” gun. She then went looking for and found the offending driver. The silver sedan followed here home where the two parties exchanged fire. It was a “shootout at the OK corral”. A bullet hit the mother in the head.

This is how I see the story. The government issued the 22-year old son a permit to own and carry a gun. Obviously, to this young man, the purpose of the second amendment was that people can and should own guns to defend themselves. I am sure he saw what he was doing as defending himself and his mother that is doing exactly why he had the gun. Those who have deliberately ignored the words in the Constitution, which actually says citizens can own guns if they belong to an organized militia. Clearly, a militia, or state-controlled army, which is there to protect the interest of the state in the new formed federations of states. Our founding fathers have written this section of the Constitution as if they were ignoring the obvious existence of police, armed individuals, or groups of individuals who are there to protect individual. Sheriffs or police existed then and exist today.

The proper thing for him and his mother was to call the police. Rather than call the police she called her untrained, inexperienced son. People, who think as he does, deny logic and tradition and feel they can protect themselves better than the police can do, which this case clearly shows, is ridiculous. In my mind, the bullet in the head of this woman did not come from the son’s gun but here is not question; if her son did not have “his” gun, she would not be dead today. His poor judgment killed his mother.     

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

HIDDEN HERO IN ALL OF US

War movies are like an autobiography; it is the last place you would look to find the truth. Most of us have never been in a shooting war yet we know what it is like and it has no resemblance to the usual movie plot line; good guy beats up a bad guy and gets the girl. I read a lot and of all the books I have read, Delivered from Evil (1987) by Robert Leckie was most meaningful. Perhaps I have the emotions I do because as a child in Minnesota, I followed the Second World War as it happened and saw mothers put Gold Stars in their windows and talked to the some of the guys when they came home from those notorious battle fields—people who had actually killed other people. However, the greatest impression about war was from where I never expected it. It came from a short chapter written in a book written by the famous American-born biochemist-geneticist J. Craig Venter, the acknowledged driving force behind the much-heralded human genome project. The book was, Life Decoded (2007). As a Navy Medic, he lived, and almost died by his own hand, within the nightmare of putting bodies back together in Vietnam. I have never read a more poignant account.

I fail to understand why or know how anyone can actually see glory in war. This attraction to war seems to be a residue of respecting or appreciating someone who has protected us; usually in a story line it is, the big strong hero “protected the weak, the women, and children. Obviously, this attitude remains from our tribal existence out of our distant past. I see this same attitude come to the surface in those who idolize people such as George Patton or John Wayne. I see it in things as diverse as gun ownership and in TV shows and movie preferences. It is like human preoccupation for sex scenes, entertainment producers know this and insert enough sex, and violence to attract views just as they glorify wartime killing heroism.  

In our recent history, since Vietnam and the ISIS, it has become evident there are two things that cause people to display how they really feel. We have seen the horror of beheadings on videotapes, which have spurred all the big tough guys, banishing their assault rifles, to declare they are ready to kill to protect us and the fear they have of a military draft.  You don’t believe this; look around at all the guys who own guns designed to kill people and then ask at a NRA convention for signatures pledging support of congressional legislation to start a military draft for all men, and women, between the ages of 18 and 35 to fight those who are beheading reporters. That is what you would call a room-clearing question. You would be asking them to change from heroes to what they really are and do it publically because that would be admitting they are cowards.   

I think people understand only one-half of human nature. They are fearful they would act like cowards if faced with real danger. They will not admit they have this fear, apparently because they think that would be admitting they would be cowards. The truth is most people, not all but most people, will not go looking for trouble but when faced with a crisis most will act like heroes—probably best to say we would do the right thing. I believe there is a hidden hero in all of us, but we will not find out until tested. We rarely see it in our daily lives in a civilized society; however, we see it on the news every day: a drowning child rescued from a cold, flooded river, a trapped driver pulled from a burning car, and know about legions of drafted soldiers, sailors, and marines with medal on their chest. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

GUN OWNERS VS TERRORISTS

Trying to get into the mind of people like Brandon Smith, contributing author to +Personal Liberty Digest, is challenging. To quote one of his sentences, “What we need is to take back responsibility for own defense.” The remarkable thing is that he wrote this just after writing several acerbic lines decrying big government. He writes as if he doesn’t even understand the most base fundamental purpose of government—the first thing ever learned by society about thee reason for government. The government is there to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves; the prime thing that we cannot do for our selves is “self-preservation” in world of seven billion people; 63.9 million people living in France and 330 million people in the United States.

You cannot take from yourself the responsibility of having a government that protects you and your family, your city, and your state, and your nation. If you believe, we cannot do this, then become a police officer or join the army. If you feel compelled to carry a big gun, you are someone from whom society has organized police and militia to protect us. If the police fail to protect us then the answer is for you and me, the government, to do a better job.

It is bestial to form tribes and settlements like packs of wolves do to protect themselves. Human did this before scientists recognized creatures as humans. Isn’t it about time Brandon Smith and his cohort of +Personal Digest readers come out of the dark ages and catch up on the last several million years of human natural history. How foolish it is to think that the staff of +Charlie Hebdo could protect themselves something the French government could not do.    

I like to think of the news reports around the time when the government closed down the city of Boston and suburbs after the marathon bombing—the “government” ordered people to stay in their homes to protect them. According to the news reports, I assume they were talking about the people who read Bob Livingston Personal Liberty Digest, when they report that certain people got their big pistols from under their pillows, assault rifles, AK47s, and grenade launchers, and sat on their couches and waited for the two brothers to bust into their front door. While it is true that there were no news stories that they shot each other, the possibility was their.  

Do you suppose the brothers didn’t burst into those front doors because they saw pictures of the home owners holding their big guns or do you think they were occupied with avoiding the “organized” militia and police? Isn’t there something about organized militia in the constitution? Isn’t there something about the biggest wimp owning the biggest gun?

Brandon Smith writing about the Hebdo shooting in Paris; “It is times like these that separate the courageous from the cowardly; those with principles and conscience versus the treacherous and self-serving.” The title of his article was, What will you do when tyranny and terrorism work hand in hand? How can that title make any sense to anyone?  It is a fact that in a crisis, people with big guns cower on their couches with their gun in their laps, and not like John Wayne, on the “front lines” bravely facing an onslaught of gunfire as they see it in their minds.  

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

AMERICAN ARROGNANCE ON DISPLAY

It happened again; the police captured an illegal alien caught violating the law. It is the same old story. Although he was driving a pickup truck with foreign license plates, the driver crossed the boarder, into our country, and was driving around impeded. The police stopped and searched his truck because of his unsafe load—unsecured mattress flopping around wildly in the wind. Authorities searched the vehicle and found not one, but three guns, in fact they were not only guns but were loaded guns. Nothing about the person or his activity was legal. Although he was acting strangely, they arrested and jailed him. What was unusual is that his family contacted the government; the mother begged for leniency because although he was now mentally unstable because of his recent experience fighting what amount to a gang of outlaws, he had served valiantly. This made no difference to Government authorities; they refused in intervene. Time dragged on for 214 days but eventually a local judge dropped all charges against him, released the individual, and sent him back to his country as a free man—no punishment at all—zero.

This all seemed strange; how could anyone think that it made sense to plea mental instability as a defense for a person driving around in an illegally licensed vehicle with loaded guns in clear violation of the law. This entire story is true; however, I intentionally distorted it in a simple way; it was not, as implied, a Mexican National who crossed unimpeded into the United States. Rather, an un-uniformed American marine named Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi who entered illegally into Mexico. It was not the cruel drug war being fought in Mexico that lead to his mental instability but the war against the gang referred to as al Queda in Afghanistan; it was PTSD, which without question, is still mental instability.

When the “shoe is on the other foot” this is a clear case of right wing American arrogance—the mistaken belief that we are Americans which makes us better then anyone else. It may be legal to carry guns in your private vehicle in the United States but it is clearly not legal in Mexico. Who among us do not believe that PTSD is mental instability? Who among us think it is OK for a mentally unstable individual to carry loaded guns? To point out how absurd this whole situation is think of a PTSD victim with three loaded guns in a place in the United States where it is illegal to carry guns, such as in a school or in congress—how many politicians would line up in his support? Who among us refuse to accept that idea that a negative Latino bias has charged our political atmosphere? For example, what would you think of finding a mentally disturbed Mexican with three loaded guns driving in an unlicensed pickup in Texas? Who among us do not understand that politicians, both Republican and Democrat, who were there to welcome the released prisoner at the boarder, were there for the photo opportunity? All of a sudden, serving in the military is an “excuse” for breaking the law—it is not. War may be a cause for metal illness (PTSD) but never an excuse for illegal behavior. All of a sudden, the belief that the government is not doing what the radical right wing wants them to do, what ever it may be, is a cause célèbre. Sgt. Tahmooressi violating the law of a foreign government is like rancher Clevin Bundy, who was stealing from our government, the right wing made him into a hero for political advantage. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

OTTAWA CANADA AND GUN OWNERSHIP

I have a T-shirt that proclaims in big letters, “I am a Canadian”. It was s gift from a good friend. I put it on this morning. I can identify with that Country after the horrific events of Ottawa. I do not believe my response OF identifying with Canada as an American was usual. As one MP said, “we as countries may rub one another the wrong way from time to time, but we stand together.”  That does not mean we are the same in all respects. Domestically speaking, Canada is a much more peaceful nation, and there is a reason for that. They do have an active gun lobby advocating unregulated gun ownership. However, Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a “pseudo” constitutional right to bear arms, the high court in that nation stated in 1993, in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons. Under the duress of a rich gun lobby, our constitution has been misread and allows for wholesale-unregulated “gun” ownership—anything goes.

I suspect, but do not have the figures to back up my suspicion, there are more hunters, and rural residents amo0ng the 35 million people in Canada than there are in the 330 million people in the Untied States, which means the legitimate gun owners’ probably out number those who oppose gun ownership, still they have more sensible laws. A “good guy with a gun” shot and killed the single gunman in Ottawa; it is notable that the good person with a gun was a peace officer. It will be interesting to watch and see if the essentially false panic created by one terrorists in Canada stampedes the Canadian government into succumbing to the wishes of the gun lobby. If they take law enforcement out of the hands of the RCMP and turn law enforcement over to a bunch of thugs with guns, I will take off that T-shirt. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

CONGRESS AT FAULT FOR SECRET SERVICE FAILURE

The media is saturated with stories concerning security breaks at the White House and on an elevator in Atlanta. I am not surprised or impressed with the average response, the fury of the coverage, or with the superficial nature of the investigation; it is business as usual. As expected, the congressional hearing advertized as looking “in depth” into what happened, is no more than a media circus giving congressional members camera time for their righteous indignation. I listened to the hearings and heard nothing that was not already in the media. The only solution I heard was fire the Secret Service Director. One congressional representative mentions the broad sweep of the sequestration as a cause but a fellow member severely castigated her for mentioning it. In the associated coverage, one of the reporters mentions the uniformed secret service officers were short staffed due to shortage of funds, was therefore overworked, and consequently had low moral but that was the extent of the explaination. In addition to the White House breech, several congressional members mention a person with a gun who was on the elevator with the president in Atlanta was a “low level” contractor security guard.

I wonder how many people see the connection of this near disaster and our over all “government on the cheap” economic approach to government and realize that what this approach is giving us is exactly the opposite of what we want. I make this remark in reference to “small government” people like Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, who constantly say they want smaller government but of course, they are inevitably the first one to criticize the government when something like this happens. Classically, they say we should have had an advance team investigating everyone the president would be in contract with him. Do they know how much this would cost? The interesting thing is that people like Joe often embellish their remarks with something like, “we ought to have more highly trained secret service agents” or “there ought to be a law” against this or that. Being patriotic Americans, they demands our president and his family be protected, wither it cost a lot of money or not. Surprisingly, even these penny-pinchers and the radical Obama haters put all the blame for the Secret Service failure on the director, and demanded the president fire her.

There was a contractor involved in the Atlanta episode because there is a massive belief, especially among conservatives that private contractors can do a better job than government. We never seem to learn that many, if not most, private contractors are there to rip-off the taxpayers. For some odd twist of reason, Republicans seem to think that if taxpayers pay contractors—privatization—it doesn’t cost money. We have been experiencing that same swindle for centuries but it is getting worse with time. A contractor, more than likely paid directly by the government, hired the man with the gun who was on the elevator. Among other things, he had a criminal history. I assume he had a gun permit, which should mean someone, vetted him, as being mentally competent—perhaps a clerk in a gun store acted as a psychologist. However, more that likely, in our gun crazy culture, even that did not happen. If we examined the contractor’s books, I will guarantee that the U. S. Treasury or some government treasury paid big money to a company executive with an organization (big office and office staff, etc,) to provide security—to do what Secret Service could do better. Look at what we got for our money? U.S. congressional representatives, both Republicans and Democrats, were adamant, during the hearings that the U.S. Secret Service be faulted for not doing that same thing all over again because, and get this; because “the Secret Service could do it better”. Last time I looked, the Secret Service (even if under funded), is the government. Do I have to point out these Representatives are the same people who demand that private contractors can do it better. Jeremy Scahill wrote his book, Blackwater (2007) as an exposé about the privatization of the military including cooks and plumbers, Privatization made Dick Cheney, among many, many others, made millions and millions of dollars for doing a very, very poor job’ ever hear of private contractors being killed on the front line? No but you did hear about soldiers being electrocuted while showering. Ever hear of an ex criminal on an elevator with the president with a gun that was vetted by a private contractor. Well, I have. It wasn't the director who was blaming someone else, it was Congress.  

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

GIRL SHOOTS NRA IN FOOT

I was not surprised at the out come of the event. The parents of a nine-year old girl brought her to a shooting range to have a professional teach her how to shoot an assault weapon—a nine millimeter ozi submachine gun. My first thought on hearing that she shoot her instructor was “stupid is as stupid does”. The open question is, “Why were “they” filming it?” I can come up with only one answer, which is they would show it to family, friends, and the NRA. With that film in hand, there would be no doubt they were “gun rights people”! They are among the people who are on the tough and law-abiding side of America, the true patriots, and defenders of the constitution. It would have been a great promotional film for the NRA . . . it just didn't turn out that way. 

Everyone agrees, thus, there can be no doubt that even a pretty little girl needs to learn how to defend herself. She should learn how to use a 7.72 pound, 17.5 inch ozi compact sub machine gun before she starts to carry one under her skirt or in her purse. 

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

CIRCULAR FIRING SQUAD

Gun ownership has reached a point that society is like a circular firing squad. The problem is the people in the middle are the ones who are getting killed.  I am not talking about sporting weapons or target weapons but handguns and assault rifles in the hands of wimps and cowards and otherwise unstable people. I could slough this off by saying, “Who cares; let them shoot each other.” The problem is that I do care. It is true I care more about the people who are in the middle of the circle as the shoot up each other but I am concerned about the heartache and grief they cause with their guns even if it each other they shoot.

 I have listened to all l their arguments for owning guns and have found them hollow. For example, their Second Amendment Rights argument they base on a deliberate and obvious misreading of the constitution. In the colonies, by law, every man had to own a gun and belong to the militia intended to protect their “soon to be state”. Against a background of developing domestic law enforcement intended to protect individuals from each other, the state governments knew they needed what amounted to an army to protect their state from other states; a militia is very different from individual “stand your ground” laws.

The people who are buying guns seem to be the least trained in how to use them or understand the power they have in their hands, the exclusive province of actual combat veterans and not want-a-bees like those over armed and under brained people we saw surrounding rancher Clevin Bundy. We know combat veterans are trained but also we know we can trust them with “responsible use” of a gun; they are not the “punks” who are buying the assault rifles, etc. I include the experienced deer, elk and moose, hunters. They know that guns can kill but also wound. Thus, I am not just referring to how to load or unload, turn on and off a safety latch, and aim and fire at a target but am talking about responsible self or family protection. Very few people really understand the balance of power when it comes to protecting them selves with a gun; even some experienced police need more training in that regard. I often think of this lack of ownership “responsibility” when I see a person with an assault rifle. I think in the same light when I see a person being pulled down the street by a pit bull with a studded collar and an extra heavy chain; does anyone really have to ask if this people knows how to train and control a dog. Do they really understand the potential force they have at the end of that chain? They obviously do not know that dog breeders and trainers trained this dog at the end of the chain to be a junkyard dog and should not coop them up in a small apartment and treat them as lap dogs.  

Gun manufacturers, supported by unscrupulous Republican political operatives such as Karl Rove, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, have bought and paid for a small bunch of “hate the government” nuts, “hate Obama” crazies, and other easily misguided punks, the pit bull owner types for example, to take over the National Rifle Association. This is sad commentary on our society, but what is a bigger tragedy is that many sports hunters, target shooters, and gun collectors have fallen under their spell—including some of my relatives—they should abandon the NRA and form their own organization that would stands for responsible gun ownership. They should stop being blinded by jingoistic crap and become leaders.    

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated