Democrats Mantra: If At First You Don’t Succeed, Change The Rules

2016 was a devastatingly difficult election year for the Democrats. I can still see the faces of the main stream media as the election results started coming in that were giving the indication that the impossible had happened. Donald Trump was to become the president elect and eventually the President of the United States. Over the course of the following days and weeks they tried to come to grips with reality. They struggled to understand how this came to be. There had to be an explanation and malicious actors at play here – like the Russians! How is it they lost at a game they were almost guaranteed to win from the start?

It never occurred to them that perhaps they should look into getting better players, but that’s a story for another column.

Eventually they came to the conclusion that the problem was millions of simpletons like you and I who call themselves Conservatives. We are uneducated, evangelical, racist, xenophobic, older white males who dictate to our wives who to vote for because we are also misogynists. How could we possibly be trusted with our votes? Drastic measures must be taken to ensure things like this never happen again! But what to do? The answer the Democrats came up with is simple. Change the rules.

Of course I’m being overly dramatic here. Or am I? It’s not as though they haven’t done that very thing in the past.

In 2013 Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option on executive branch nominations and federal judge appointments. This was done to ensure President Obamas nominations would not be challenged by traditional filibuster rules. In true “tit for tat” mentality, the Republicans returned the favor in 2017 by invoking the nuclear option in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The Democrats were enraged that their own tactics were used against them and lead to President Trumps first Supreme Court Nominee to be confirmed. Democrats changed Senate rules in order to get what they wanted in the short term only to have it backfire on them in the long run. Now they are at it again, but this time they are targeting the Constitution itself.

With 2020 now clearly in sight and the Democrats taking control of the House they are wasting no time taking efforts to ensure what happened in 2016 does not happen again. On the first day in session for the 116th Congress Rep. Steve Cohen (D) from Tennessee submitted H.J.Res.7 which proposes amending the Constitution to abolish the electoral collage and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States. No longer would the Democrats have to suffer winning the popular vote like what Hillary did in 2016 but still lose the White House.

By turning our presidential election cycles into nothing more than a popularity contest it can easily be won by securing votes in only a few states. There are two video’s by Prager University from 2015 that explain the Electoral College and why it is so important. I highly recommend you watch them and will provide links to them below this article. The protections built into the Electoral College are crucial to defending our democracy. It ensures we all continue to have a voice when it comes to our elections and guards against interference from other countries which, oddly enough, the Democrats still believe happened in 2016. Why if they believe another country colluded to influence our elections and did so successfully would they now seek to change the process making it easier to influence our future elections by going with a simple popularity vote?

This is why the Democratic Party has become so dangerous. When faced with a loss that they cannot comprehend or believe to be unjust – they seek to change the rules to favor their immediate objectives. They do not consider the future impacts. Forget that for hundreds of years we have had the Constitution to protect our freedoms and it has worked. That doesn’t matter. They lost and don’t like it let alone understand basic Civics. As soon as they acquire the slightest bit of power again, as they did in 2018 by winning back the House, they immediately work to change the rules to try and ensure they do not lose again.

What the Democrats have proposed is not democracy. It is an attempt to implement totalitarianism by those who believe their morals and ethics are superior. The bill is sure to be dead upon arrival should it even make it to the Senate floor. But that’s not really the point here. The point here is that the Democrats have shown their true colors. They have exposed their intentions for everyone to see. And it’s not just the Electoral College they are after. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) along with many other cosponsors have introduced another bill aimed at the Second Amendment called the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 that essentially outlaws every rifle and handgun.

However, consider what would happen if Rep. Cohen’s or Sen. Feinstein’s proposed legislations were to pass. Democracy will have died at the hands of those who claim to most ardently defend it.

It appears their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Prager University Videos:
POPULAR VOTE vs ELECTORAL COLLEGE
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

“Common Sense Gun Laws” According To The Left

During political debates/discussions on Twitter and Facebook I have a tendency to befriend those who are on the opposite political spectrum. Especially those who are capable of having a conversation without devolving into name calling and can actually articulate their point of view with intellect and dignity. Recently I have made two new friends who I respect and enjoy discussing issues with. Recently one such new friend on Facebook that I made during a discussion on my cousins page posted a video from “Now This Op-Ed” video on where they discuss what they believe are the dumbest arguments against gun laws.

I watched the video and responded basically saying that we have a constitutional right to defend ourselves with the use of firearms if we so choose. I pointed out the recent shootings in Florida and at the YouTube headquarters were mostly due to law enforcement and the FBI not enforcing existing laws or acting on multiple tips. In the case of the church shooter here in Texas a few months back it was the failure of the Air Force to properly update the NICS database that allowed him to purchase a firearm. My argument is simply that we need to enforce the laws we currently have and our agencies who exist only to protect us need to do a better job.

I then received a quite lengthy response that went over the standard arguments when it comes to gun control discussions.

  • Congress made it illegal for CDC/NIH to study gun violence
  • Gun vs Vehicle debate from the right is ridiculous and not a valid argument
  • The Second Amendment is “antiquated” and was written when muskets were the latest gun technology
  • 20 Veterans die per day by suicide using guns
  • You are morally corrupt if you don’t support “common sense gun control laws” (aka – a gun ban)

PageNotFound_Collage_06 APR 2018To their credit they did included several links to support their argument, but as you can see in the image here – the first three links they gave were “Page Not Found” errors. The remaining links I did my due diligence and read through the articles as to then respond to the points that were made. I did so with an open mind and hoping to find some data that supported their argument and would shed some light on another side of the discussion that I was unaware of.

Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

Below is my unedited response to their Facebook Post. I’m leaving it unedited because there were some snarky comments that we both made and in full disclosure/honesty here – I wanted that to be included. I admit. I’m not perfect and will at times engage in snark as well in my responses. Call me human, I suppose. But I do want to point out that even though we may have strong views and make them with a touch of condescension to each other – I believe I am right in saying on behalf of the person involved here that it is done so in jest, with no malicious intent behind it and not an attempt to belittle or offend the other. You should know the person involved in this conversation is quite literally a scholar on American history and has been politically active their entire lives since high school, so I respect their opinion greatly and am very glad to have met them and am afforded the opportunity to have these types of discussions.

Lastly, I want to clarify a few points before you read my response.

First of all, the local and Federal law enforcement agencies are tasked with an unimaginably difficult task when it comes to enforcing gun laws and protecting citizens. My comments are in no way an attack on them or a indication of my lack of respect or support for them. I assure you it is quite the opposite. I have great respect for those who literally put on a gun everyday to go to work and put their lives on the line for people they don’t even know. I have friends and former classmates who are officers, detectives and Texas State Troopers and am grateful to them all for their dedication and the work they do.

Second, the veteran suicide rate mentioned below is appalling. It is a reflection of our failure to provide them with the resources and programs needed for those fortunate enough to return home from combat after defending our nation. Many of these men and women volunteered at the age of 18 and wrote a blank check payable to the United States for up to and including their lives in order to defend our citizens, our Constitution and our way of life. They are hero’s who deserve the best care we as a nation have to offer and they are not receiving it. That is a shame that we as a nation need to address immediately.

With that said – I submit to you my original, unedited response below. I have not received a response to it yet and it has been just over 24hrs since I posted it, but it was their birthday yesterday so I am certain they will respond in due time once the festivities have subsided.

Signature2_RWB_BOLD_22 FEB 2018

=======================================================================

In good faith I tried to read the articles you linked starting at the top on down. The WSJ, Politico and NYT links (the first three) are all “No Page Found” – so can’t address those.

However, you claim that it is illegal for the CDC/NIH to research gun violence is not true.

The CDCs ability to study gun violence was limited in 1996 by an amendment that simply stated it cannot collect data to advocate for gun control. That was it. President Obama signed an order in 2013 directing the CDC to resume research but they only have done so in a limited fashion. President Trump’s new HHS Secretary Alez Azar is advocating for the research to continue and move forward as well – so the premise that it is illegal for the CDC or NIH to study gun violence is, again – not true.

To your point about SUV’s/vehicles – I used that point because vehicles are an active threat the moment you begin driving. That hunk of steel is moving forward at a velocity most often greater than 40mph, which can be lethal to a pedestrian if you do not control it. My firearm secured to my hip in its concealed carry holster is not an active threat to anyone. I would have to draw and aim my weapon for it to be an active threat. So there in lies the validity of the argument as far as I am concerned. My opinion though, feel free to disagree.

The Second Amendment guarantees me the right to defend myself with the use of a firearm if I choose too. It’s that simple. There is no exceptional status here at play.

I love how passive aggressive your writing is when you say “Justice Stevens is among a minority of informed Americans who want to repeal the 2nd amendment”.

It would seem based on your argument preceding that sentence that you are not educated in firearms nor the history of them, and obviously Justice Stevens is not either if that is his stance regarding it being written in the time of muskets being the most advanced weaponry in existence.

The argument that it was written when Muskets that took +6 seconds to reload and were the most advanced weapons at the time is not true.

The Belton Flintlock could fire up to 20 rounds in a matter of seconds. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock) George Washington originally commissioned 100 of these rifles, though the government never purchased them.

The Girandoni air rifle was designed in 1779 and was used on it’s use of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. It had a 20 round gravity fed magazine and the weapon could fire accurately up to 125yds at a high rate of fire (approx. 30 seconds to fire 20 rounds). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle).

There is also the Puckle Gun that was made about 60yrs before the Revolutionary War that was essentially a gatlin style gun. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun)

The founding fathers who wrote the Second Amendment were well aware of advances being made in firearms in their own time and had no misconceptions that firearm technology would continue to advance. Yet, they put no limitation on the definition of firearm – for that very reason. So the people could have the most recent and modern technologically advanced firearms available so as to never be at a disadvantage.

The argument you give regarding a gun in your home not making you more safe is, from what I read of your links, mostly opinion mixed with some facts. Truth is it is relative to the owner and for them to decide. I certainly feel better knowing I am no longer at a disadvantage should someone with a firearm break into my home. The trouble I have with the articles you linked is that I haven’t found the data sets they used in their research. As I am sure you are aware the “definition” as to what constitutes a “mass shooting” is not clearly defined and those seeking to prove a point often skew the data. The FBI standard to define a mass shooting is +4 deaths. Yet CNN and other news sources have touted evidence in the past that the data they used was +6 in order to show that the gun ban in the 90’s had a positive impact and decreased the number of gun massacres – which is based on skewed data to support their claim. (you can see the graphic in this Washington Post article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/its-time-to-bring…/… )

In regards to the death rate of the US vets, you said it yourself – they are suicides. So is that a condemnation of firearms or the lack of support, care and available resources that those men and women have earned by serving our country that we are failing to provide? The children statistic I could not find anything on, so would like to see your information on that if you can link it, please.

Lastly, read what I wrote on my website last week – especially the part at the bottom where the FBI statistics come into play regarding murders by firearms and incidents deferred or prevented by law abiding citizens who used their firearms. You’ll see that incidents deterred or prevented outnumber those killed by 5 to 1 margin.

https://statecraftobserver.com/…/john-paul-stevens-and…/

We have rational gun safety laws in existence today. Again, I say we need to enforce them and ensure the agencies responsible for enforcing them do their jobs and have the ability to do their jobs.

Being Part Of History: March Sets Record For NICS Firearms Background Checks

March was somewhat of a historic month with the March For Our Lives protests just one short week ago this past weekend.  Not to be outdone, the FBI released the numbers of NICS Firearms Background Checks for March making it’s own bit of history in that it set a record for the month.  According to the report there were 2,767,699 backround checks ran against the NICS database.

And for the first time in our lives both my wife and I were part of those numbers as we both purchased firearms this past Saturday.

As I recently wrote about in another article, I felt it was time to finally “pull the trigger” (pardon the pun) and purchase my first firearm.  My wife who grew up around guns had no objections and happily purchased her first as well.  For those curious she went with the GLOCK 19 Gen 5 and I went with the SigSauer P320.

We fired many different weapons to see which ones we felt most comfortable with and were the most accurate with.  The professionals at the range and shop were helpful and attentive and spent as much time as we needed and were happy to do so.  They walked us through the background check and after several hours of shooting and less than an hour of paperwork we headed home happy in our decision.

We both plan on getting our License To Carry (LTC) or Concealed Handgun License (CHL) (both terms are now technically correct in Texas, I found out) within the next few months.  We even took our oldest daughter living at home with us back to the range on Sunday so she could fire the weapons and familiarize herself with them.  Our youngest will be going as well in the next week or so.

Anyone who has never fired a gun before, as I had not until this past Saturday, I highly recommend going and taking the time to do so.  Educate yourself on what exactly that means.  I would even recommend going through the process of purchasing a firearm.  Even if you plan on not keeping it and have the shop put it up for consignment.

Go through the process.  Fill out the ATF form and experience the background check process to see all that is involved.  It might open your eyes more than you think.

Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go join the NRA (5yr membership), order some practice ammo and show my wife the three options for next gun I plan on buying that I will use as my Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW).  Those who are curious it’s between the GLOCK 43, Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 2.0 and the SigSauer P365.

Signature2_RWB_BOLD_22 FEB 2018

John Paul Stevens And The Vermont Legislature Just Became The NRA’s Next Biggest Membership Drive Boosters Since David Hogg

If you are a supporter of the Second Amendment and believe in the right to bear arms is a constitutional right for everyone, then this week has been very busy and quite frankly – scary.  As if last Saturday’s March For Our Lives protests and constant coverage from the Main Stream Media outlets parading the Parkland, Florida Survivors (with the exception of Kyle Kashuv, of course) to push their political agenda of banning guns wasn’t enough to keep you on edge, along come two more reasons to white knuckle your AR just a tad bit more.

On Tuesday former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the dissenting argument to the D.C. vs. Heller case no less, wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times.  In the piece Stevens calls for an outright repeal of the, and I’m quoting here, relic of the 18th century we all know as the Second Amendment.  He then goes on to say how the Heller decision did nothing but provide propaganda for the NRA and how simple it would be to overturn that ruling and get rid of the Second Amendment all together via a constitutional amendment.

Yeah, Good luck with that J.P.!

But then, just as I was smugly laughing off J.P.’s Op-Ed and moving on to Russia test firing an ICBM dubbed ‘Satan’ – Vermont comes along and essentially tells J.P. to “hold my beer…” with this classy little piece of legislation.

House Proposal of Amendment S.55, as it is being referred to in the Vermont Legislature, passed with a vote of 17 -13 (Yea/Nay) today.  Originally S.55 was proposed to enforce laws prohibiting the sale or dispensation of illegal drugs.  Somehow it got changed to a gun control bill which I have yet to understand the leap from drug enforcement to banning guns – but I digress.  In essence the bill says you can’t buy a gun until the age of 21 (with exception of law enforcement, military, national guard, etc.), bans large capacity magazines, bans bump-stocks (the only part I’m fine with) and tosses in wording to investigate into how best to impose background checks for private firearms sales.

This legislation is not a gun ban.  However, I view it as a precursor to that now very plausible future state when taken with Stevens Op-Ed published earlier in the week.  The Left and the Main Stream Media wasted no time in touting their praises for the article and for Vermont on passing S.55.

Why?

Because make no mistake about it.  Their end goal is an outright repeal of the Second Amendment and a ban on firearms.  Their general argument being that they are looking after the safety of the children.  Statistically speaking, however, it has been shown that less guns do not equate for greater safety.  In fact, the data shows exactly the opposite of that narrative.

According to FBI Statistics from 2007-2011 there were 46,313 murders committed by firearms in the United States.    FBI Murder Victims_2007-2011 Statistics_firearms Only

According to the reported analysis of Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use conducted by Violence Policy Center there were 235,700 cases where self-protective behavior was reported with a firearm.  Unfortunately this report does not specifically indicate if those self-protective incidents were successful, but based off the wording of the report it is assumed that the incidents were prevented.Self-Protective Behaviors_2007-2011_NCVS_BureauOfJusticeStatistics

Given those numbers, far many more lives were potentially saved than lost by firearms.  In fact it is more than five times the numbers of lives saved.

This is far below the number of lives saved in self-protective incidents as reported by the NRA where that estimate hovers around the 2.5 million mark.  However, it is still an impressive number and more ardently supports the case that having a firearm is far greater than not having one when it comes to the ability to defend yourself.

To me that is what the Second Amendment and the Heller decision are all about.  Having the ability to defend myself, my family and my property should the need ever arise.  The Left and their crusade to impede my ability to do so is unconstitutional at its core.  I find their reasoning to be factually inaccurate and their solution of having Government, State and Local Officials protect us unacceptable.  Especially when you take into account the recent failures of those very agencies tasked with protecting those students in Parkland, Florida.

It is an insult to those lives lost that the survivors are now being used by the Left and Main Stream Media to advocate for their political agenda of banning guns under the false pretense of more safety.

The facts simply do  not support that argument.

Signature2_RWB_BOLD_22 FEB 2018