Thursday, October 13, 2016

REPUBLICANS: JOIN ME IN ASKING THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO REPLACE TRUMP WITH PENCE!

We need to email the RNC at: ecampaign@gop.com

Feel free to copy and paste the following message:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear Sirs and Madams,

Recent revelations concerning our candidate for president make it clear that he is unqualified to serve in such a high office.  We need not rely on the statements of his accusers - his own recorded statements are damaging enough.   The RNC is empowered to act to replace a candidate in order to deal with situations precisely like this.

I have voted Republican my entire life - and should Trump be on the ticket I will vote for him.  The alternative is even worse.  However, we all know that he will lose.  We cannot afford to lose this election.  The nation cannot afford to lose this election.  Given the recent revelations concerning Sec. Clinton should ensure a Republican win - an there is every reason to believe that exactly what will happen IF WE HAVE A "CLEAN" CANDIDATE.

I implore you to replace Donald Trump with Mike Pence.  Please do the right thing for the party and the nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

What Constitutional Rights Are At Risk Should Hillary Clinton Become President?

YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRACTICE YOUR RELIGION.  Hillary Clinton would continue Obama’s policies.  His Civil Rights Commission said: “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ … remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance”.   She would push for repeal of RFRA, which is the only thing protecting religious freedom at this point.

YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.  Hillary Clinton wants to make it illegal for you to band together with like-minded people to speak out on issues in the months leading up to elections.  Of course millionaires and billionaires – as well as labor unions – would be unaffected.  She has advocated the partial repeal of the 1st Amendment to accomplish this – what other people does she wish to muzzle?

YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN FIREARMS.  Hillary Clinton has said “the Supreme Court got it wrong on the 2nd Amendment” – yet all their rulings did was establish that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right for sane and law abiding citizens to own firearms.  Many gun control measures are unaffected.  She also has advocated “the Australian model” in which over half the nation’s civilian firearms were confiscated.   In the recent debate she flat out lied about the nature of the Heller decision and why she opposes it.  Heller had nothing to do with toddlers - it was a ban on all handguns and a ban on functional long guns.  This is the law Heller overturned.  Safe storage laws are unaffected, ans are DC's background check and training requirements.  The only reason to want to overturn this historic ruling is to be able to ban handguns.

YOUR 5TH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.  In a move opposed by the ACLU, the NAACP and the NRA (among others), Hillary Clinton wants to use the so called “no fly list” to deny firearms rights to people who have never been convicted of anything – in spite of the fact that we do not know how people get on the list and there is no way to get off.  Many people have been on the list in error (even Sen. Kennedy!).  If your due process rights can be denied in this area of law – they can be denied in any area of law.

Hillary Clinton is the only modern presidential candidate to advocate the de facto repeal of portions of the Bill of Rights.  She must not become president.



Saturday, September 24, 2016

Seven Reasons Why Christians Should Vote For Trump

In this election, there is no one running whom Christians can wholeheartedly support.  Both Trump and Clinton have their issues.  I sincerely wish that Ted Cruz was on the general election ballot – but he isn’t there.  On the Democratic side, we cannot choose a Jimmy Carter, a John Kennedy, or even an honest Socialist like Bernie Sanders.  Although I am a conservative, I would give serious consideration to any of the preceding Democrats – because of their character - but they are not running.

We all must face this reality: Just because we must choose between two poor candidates this does not mean that our choice is not important.  There are many reasons why, in this election, Donald Trump is the better choice.  Here are seven of them.

1) Christians will have significant influence in a Trump administration; they will have zero influence in a Clinton administration.

Outside of extremely theologically liberal churches, Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t want or need to listen to Christians.  On the other hand, Trump absolutely needs the support of evangelicals, theologically conservative Catholics and other theologically conservative Christians (as well as theologically conservative Jews).  He will not be elected without our votes and he will not be able to advance his legislative agenda without us either.  Trump’s choice of Mike Pence – a solid evangelical - as his running mate certainly reflects his recognition that he needs us.


Trump's choice of Mike Pence, a solid evangelical,
as his running mate is huge.
So, be it immigration reform, or the matter of Christians being persecuted overseas, or any other issue that concerns us – we will have influence in a Trump administration.  Hillary Clinton has never cared what we think and never will.

2) Trump will be held accountable by both parties – Democrats will continue to give Hillary Clinton a pass on any and everything she may want to do.


We have seen the Democratic party pull out all the stops to nominate someone with massive ethical and even criminal issues.  Short of homicide, it appears that she can do nothing that will cause the Democratic leadership to stop covering for her.  On the other hand, Trump is not only despised by Democrats, he is a complete outsider in relation to Republicans – having won the nomination by attracting both new voters and crossover votes from Democrats.  Should Trump do any of the things that opponents fear, the Republican leadership would not hesitate to impeach him.  After all, his replacement – Mike Pence – is a rock solid conventional conservative, someone the Republican establishment would consider a vast improvement over Trump. 

3) Clinton presents a significant threat to religious freedom – Trump does not.



Our religious freedom is hanging by a thread – and has been for many years.  In the late 1980s and early 1990s SCOTUS issued several rulings that gutted the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment.  Taken together, they require religious individuals to obey “all generally applicable laws”.  In other words, unless the law is specifically designed to apply only to religious people, religious individuals must obey it even if it conflicts with, and substantially burdens, the free exercise of their religion.

These rulings alarmed both left and right – so much that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.  Sen. Ted Kennedy was a co-sponsor and it passed the Senate 99-0.  It could never pass today.  It was RFRA – not the 1st Amendment free exercise clause - that was the basis of the Hobby Lobby decision.  

Without RFRA, here are just a few of the things that the federal government could do:

  • Require all doctors, as a condition of licensing, to participate in at least one abortion.  (This has actually been proposed in the past.)
  • Draft Quakers, Amish and others whose religion forbids their participation in war and require them to serve in combat units.
  • Require religious hospitals to conduct abortions, regardless of their views.
  • Churches that allow non-members to rent their facilities for non-member weddings could be compelled to allow same sex couples to rent their facilities, regardless of their views on such unions.
  • Require religious organizations, perhaps even churches, to hire people whose conduct and/or beliefs conflict with the official positions of the organization.
  • Religious schools could be required to use government-mandated curriculum on any and every subject.
  • Everyone who solemnizes marriages – including priests, ministers and rabbis – could be required to do so for all persons issued a license.

In short, as long as religious individuals and institutions are not singled out – almost anything goes.

Just in case you still think that Democrats are in favor of freedom of religion, consider this statement from the Obama administration’s Commission on Civil Rights:

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ … remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,”  This terrifying statement does not reflect an off hand comment by a single official – it appears in an official report and reflects official policy

Indeed many of our civil rights are now at risk and may be lost if Clinton is elected.  She and most other Democrats would love to repeal RFRA, but this is unlikely.  However, do not forget that if elected she will appoint several justices to SCOTUS.  Chance are that in addition to reversing recent 2nd Amendment rulings, a willingness to overturn RFRA as unconstitutional will be a litmus test.  Either way, Hillary Clinton will try to end religious freedom as we know it. 

4) Clinton can be counted upon to do everything possible to silence Christians.


Democrats of today have no respect for the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech clause either.  Under the guise of “election reform” they want to limit the ability of persons to join together and speak their mind for months before elections.  Of course, organizations favorable to Democrats, such as unions, would be exempted.  Without question, this is yet another effort to fix elections.

Given that the single most reliable predictor of a Republican vote is church attendance, a Clinton administration will definitely do everything possible to silence Christians.  Given that the Obama administration has already used the IRS against conservative groups, it is highly likely that the IRS will be weaponized against Churches and Christians.  It is likely that any clergy endorsing Republican candidates can expect their churches to be audited.  Look for the IRS to say that by virtue of their association with the church, personal endorsements constitute an endorsement by the church.  Any clergy member speaking out will risk their church’s non-profit status.  Ditto for churches where a significant number of parishioners are politically active.  The IRS will allege that with so many members involved in conservative causes, the church is simply a cover for political activity.  The IRS does not have to win these cases to accomplish their goal – they can and will make life so difficult for politically active Christians that they learn to keep their mouths shut.  

5) If elected, Clinton will be the first person elected after committing an impeachable offense.  (Perjury, without question she lied under oath to Congress – the FBI findings directly contradict her testimony.)


Hillary Clinton testified under oath, before Congress, that she had never sent or received any classified material via her private email – the FBI found over 100 such communications.  She testified that she had turned over all of her work related emails, the FBI found thousands more she had not turned over.  I could go on, but what is totally clear is that Hillary Clinton committed perjury before Congress.  There is no question that this constitutes an impeachable offense.

Donald Trump has no such problems.

6) Hillary Clinton is not only corrupt – she does not even attempt to hide her corruption.


Weapons Deals Are But A Tiny
Fraction Of Cases Where A
Favorable Act By The State
Department Was Followed By
A Huge "Gift"
As Secretary of State, Clinton turned the State Department into her own cash machine.  President Obama was so concerned about this, that he had Hillary Clinton sign a document agreeing that her foundation would not take contributions from persons or nations having business before the State Department.  She began violating this agreement almost immediately.  During her four years as Secretary of State, her foundation took tens of millions of dollars from persons and nations having business before the Department of State.  In addition, time after time, after getting a favorable ruling from the Clinton State Department, Bill Clinton would be hired by those who sought the ruling to give a speech.  He was paid between $250,000.00 and $1,500,000.00 for these “speeches”.  All of this was done right out in the open.  If this had been done by anyone else, the press would be all over this – but when it comes to Hillary, this obvious corruption is ignored.  Imagine what she would do as president…

All of this is well documented in this documentary.

Donald Trump has no issues that rise to this level.


7) According to the FBI director, it would be highly unlikely, after mishandling classified documents, that she could obtain a security clearance – this alone should completely disqualify her.


General David Petraeus Mishandled One
Classified Document - Sec. Clinton
Mishandled Hundreds
Should we elect someone as president who has already demonstrated that she cannot be trusted with classified information?  Should we elect someone as president who could not qualify to be a presidential aide?  Should we elect someone as president who barely escaped prosecution for an offense that, in addition to other punishment, would have barred her from ever holding public office?  I think the answer is obvious.


For all of the above reasons, given the actual choice between these two candidates, the only choice for serious Christians is Donald Trump.  Should he be elected, this Christian will be watching him closely in order to hold him accountable.

   

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Do Democrats Keep People Out Of Poverty?

Based on Presidential Election Wins 2000-2012
Blue = 4 Democratic Wins
Light Blue = 3 Democratic Wins
Purple = 2 Wins Each
Pink = 3 Republican Wins
Red = 4 Republican Wins
Democrats claim that they do the best job of keeping people out of poverty.  Is that really true?  Well, let's check.

The key to getting it right is the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).  In some states the cost of living is so high that people who make a lot of money still are impoverished.  In others, the cost of living is low and people making much less are not in poverty. 

The map at left gauges control of states by charting the winners in the last 4 presidential elections.  This mirrors control of state government - especially legislatures - quite well.


Here are the most impoverished states when COLA is factored:


1) California - Blue State  (Most impoverished state)
2) Hawaii - Blue State
3) New Jersey - Blue State
4) Florida - Purple State
5) Nevada - Purple State
6) Maryland - Blue State
7) Virginia - Purple State
8) Massachusetts - Blue State
9) Connecticut - Blue State
10  New Hampshire - Blue State

Observations:

1) All ten of the most impoverished states are solidly Democratic or lean heavily Democratic.

2) Even more significantly, not one of the states is solidly Republican or leans Republican.


3) Only one state - Florida - is in the Deep South

4) Many of the top ten states are losing populations as people move to - you guessed it - Red States.


These states are losing population
These states are gaining population



Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_states_and_blue_states

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/11/01/24-7-wall-st-poverty-states/18104313/

http://www.newgeography.com/content/004818-2014-state-population-rise-south-and-west-continues


Saturday, December 5, 2015

Facts Related To The San Bernardino Terrorist Attack



In the wake of the horrible terrorist attack upon our fellow Americans in San Bernardino, as the media is filled with highly opinionated commentary and a great deal of disinformation, I would like to share some FACTS.



Christians and Jews Are Targets

Fact #1: The terrorists may have chosen to attack this group because a Messianic Jew debated with the man.
 The issue?  The Messianic Jew refused to concede that Islam is a religion of peace.  No joke.

Fact #2: Islamic terrorists have attacked Christians and Jews overseas.

Fact #3: Most churches are soft targets, with no armed security.

Conclusion: Churches and Synagogues (and even moderate Mosques) are likely to be targeted in the future.  Clergy should lead their congregations in establishing real security, and those measures must include multiple armed and trained persons or they will be completely ineffective against armed attackers.





Gun Control and Terrorism


Fact #4: Gun control laws far beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the terrorist attack in Mumbai, India - they simply ensured that the terrorists victims were unable to effectively resist the terrorists as they roamed the city for days killing defenseless people.

Fact #5: Gun control laws far beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the Kenyan mall attack - they simply ensured that the terrorists victims were unable to effectively resist as they roamed the mall killing helpless people.

Fact #6: Gun control laws beyond US constitutional limits did not stop the Paris attacks - they merely insured that the victims were unable to effectively resist as the terrorists continued shooting people for over an hour.

Fact #7: California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and they failed to stop the San Bernardino attacks.  Having lived under these laws, I am very familiar with them - and most of what has been stated by the media is wrong.  Specifically:

1) The rifles used in the attack were obtained illegally.  California requires a state and federal background check and change of registration on all transfers of ownership or possession for more than 30 days.  This did not happen in this case.  I expect that we will see the person who transferred them to the terrorist arrested.  Take note: California has no "gun show loophole" and the law accomplished nothing.

2) The rifles used in the attack are illegal to possess under California law.  They had been illegally modified by removing the magazine lock that slows magazine changes.  They were equipped with muzzle brakes, pistol grips, forward grips, and 30 round magazines - every one of which is illegal in California.

3) California makes it nearly impossible for an average person to obtain a permit to carry a firearm.  In fact, the 9th Circuit recently ruled these restrictions to be unconstitutional.  The state has appealed. All this law did was insure that no one could shoot back.

4) The building in question is a "gun free zone" - meaning that in the unlikely event that someone had a permit to carry, they could not do so in this building.

In short, California's laws completely failed to even slow this attack - in fact, they made things much easier for the terrorists.

Fact #8: Banning people on the Terrorist Watch list from purchasing firearms is absolutely unconstitutional.  

There is no constitutional right to fly on an airplane.  This enables the government to place people on the watch list with no due process whatsoever.  Such persons are not even notified that they are on the list.  In fact, the ACLU is working hard to overturn the watch list because, among other things, there is no due process.  The list is a wide net, and many people with nothing to do with terrorism are on it.  The Huffington Post (not exactly a conservative publication!) has published at least two articles detailing how inaccurate the watch list is.  (See "7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List"  and "Ford Motor Co., 2-Year-Old, Innocent Man Have Records In Terror Database".) At one point Sen. Kennedy could not fly because someone with an identical name was on the list.  


There is a constitutional right of purchase and own firearms.  People cannot be deprived of their constitutional rights without due process of law.  Banning people on the watch list from buying firearms is every bit as unconstitutional as rounding up all Muslims and placing them in camps without charges or due process.  A law banning people on the watch list from buying guns would be struck down in days, if not hours.

Fact #9: The FBI is notified every time a firearms background check is done on someone who is on the Terrorist Watch list.  (See 3rd paragraph of this CNN article.) They are then able to take action if they have real evidence that the person is a threat.

Fact #10: Gun control advocates cannot point to a single instance where any countries gun laws have stopped a terrorist attack.  The reason: It has never happened - in fact some of the worst terrorism has happened in countries where the possession of firearms is banned or virtually banned.

Conclusion: Gun control is not going to stop or even slow terrorists.  Administration efforts to enact new gun laws are an effort to distract from the real issues and co opt this tragedy to advance their pre-existing agenda.

What Can Stop Terrorist Attacks?

Fact: The head of INTERPOL has stated that armed citizens are the most effective way to stop terrorist attacks like those in Kenya and San Bernardino.  In the wake of San Bernardino, several leaders in law enforcement have called for more armed citizens.   This includes a New York state sheriff.

Fact: In spite of lies to the contrary, legally armed citizens have stopped many mass shootings.  

Fact: Armed citizens are forbidden to carry in places that are most commonly attacked - thus reducing the number of times they are able to stop mass shootings.  Indeed, since 2009, 92% of mass shootings such as the San Bernardino and the Oregon College shooting
 have taken place in so called gun free zones.  (More)

Fact: The FBI defines a mass shooting as a incident in which at least four people are shot.  Since shootings armed citizens almost always stop shootings before four people are shot, when they succeed, IT DOESN'T COUNT AS A MASS SHOOTING!  Talk about a "catch 22"!




Israeli Citizen Using His Gun To Stop A Terrorist Attack

Fact: Israel effectively stopped mass shootings by terrorists by arming large numbers of citizens.  In recent years, the number of persons authorized to carry fell to 170,000 - still a huge number when you consider that NYC, with about the same population has well under 10,000..   Recently, in response to stabbing incidents, they have increased the number of armed citizens - leading to many women being called "Glock moms".  In fact, the Israeli Prime Minister recently urged all those legally allowed to carry firearms to do so.  His call was echoed by the Jerusalem mayor.  More HERE.



Fact: Approximately 13 Million Americans have permits to carry.  Terrorists must take this into account when planning attacks (unless they are planning an attack in CA!).  These people are more law abiding than police officers and can be a major resource in stopping terrorist attacks, if and only if, we do away with so called gun free zones where only law abiding citizens are disarmed.

Conclusion: Ask yourself this question: People are being shot at your church.  Do you want to wait ten minutes or more for police to arrive, o would you rather have people in your church prepared to act immediately?  I think thre answer is obvious.

Finally, I urge everyone to view this documentary on mass shootings.   You will find it quite informative. 

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Gun Control Is Based On Propaganda




This post is available for download as a PDF file HERE

I realize that this is a radical statement.  Of course, not all gun laws are bad.  I don't want felons to have guns.  Ditto for the mentally ill.  However, we already have laws on the books to deal with these kind of situations.  I'm not talking about these laws or minor adjustments to them - I am taking about the typical gun control arguments we have all heard many times.


What is propaganda?  Is it not when you simply make stuff up in order to justify a public policy? Nearly all gun control arguments are based on PHONY INFORMATION - and I can prove it.  .  I urge you to check the following facts out for yourself.  Specifically these are prime examples of the phony information gun control arguments are based upon, none of which are ever questioned by the mainstream media: 

Phony Facts (i.e. Lies):

Gun control advocates frequently speak of the "epidemic of gun violence".  They do so because they want you to believe that gun violence is increasing - and it is working.  Most Americans believe that gun crime is rising.  But what are the real facts?

The real facts: GUN CRIME, INCLUDING GUN HOMICIDES, ARE DOWN BY NEARLY 50% SINCE 1993.   Even more significant, the nations gun supply doubled and concealed carry massively expanded during this same time frame!  Yep, more guns and more concealed carry resulted in a 50% drop in gun crime!

This information does not come from the NRA, but from official government statistics - reported by the highly regarded public research organization PEW RESEARCH.

Pew reports that this propaganda has largely succeeded.  Indeed, their report is entitled, " Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware".  Even more significantly, this drop has taken place with the number of firearms in the hands of the public as doubled and "shall issue" citizen concealed carry has expanded from a handful of states to 43 states.

Does it bother you that the American public has been successfully deceived by the gun control movement and the mainstream media?  It should.

And this is but one example.  Other phony facts include: Firearms are infrequently used in self defense, mass shootings are never stopped by armed citizens, gun free zones save lives, most Mexican crime guns come from US gun stores and many people are killed with so called "assault weapons".  All of these so called facts are completely false.  



Phony statistics

First, I invite you to check the sources of data used by pro-gun rights advocates.  You will find that organizations supporting gun rights almost exclusively use official government data.  The exception is when government doesn't collect data - such as defensive gun use.  They can do this because the actual facts support their pro-gun rights arguments.

In contrast, gun control organizations usually do not do this.  Instead, they simply make up their own terms and statistics that provide false support for gun control.  No greater example exists than their oft used "gun deaths" statistic.

As we have seen above, criminal use of firearms is down - so gun control advocates create their own statistic - not used or issued by any government agency.  They add gun homicides, gun accidents and gun suicides together to create the largest number possible.  However, when the use this figure in the media, they almost never tell you that they have done this.  Why? SIMPLE: THEY WANT THE PUBLIC TO THINK THEIR PHONY FIGURE IS THE GUN HOMICIDE FIGURE!  Indeed, most in the media never dispute this - instead, they too speak as if it is the firearms homicide figure.

Many Nations With High Suicide Rates Ban or Nearly
Ban Firearms - Yet This Doesn't Stop Suicides.
People Who Really Want To Kill Themselves Will Find A
Way.  Note that the UK and The US Have Nearly Identical
Rates of Suicide In Spite Of Draconian Gun Laws in The UK.
This is important because the majority of their "gun deaths" (about 60%) are not homicides, they are gun suicides.  When they are forced to admit that their phony figure is mostly composed of suicides, they argue that more guns equal more suicides.  They point to comparisons between cherry picked states to support this argument.  They reject the argument that someone who really wants to kill themselves will find a way - but what are the facts?

Well, we can look to three nations that are very similar: The US, Canada and the UK.  All three are English speaking, they share a common history and even, to a great extent a common media.  All three are modern industrial nations.  They do differ widely in one area: Firearms ownership.  The US has firearms in a bit less than 50% of homes (if not more), Canada has firearms in a bit less than 30% of homes and the UK has firearms in less than 4% of homes.  If firearms availability is a major factor in suicides, than the suicide rates in these three nations should vary widely.  However, this is not the case - their suicide rates are virtually identical, PROVING THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF FIREARMS DOES NOT AFFECT THE SUICIDE RATE.

Of course, if firearms are available, they will be used to commit suicide - but if they are not available  people will simply choose another method.  That is why many nations with actual or virtual bans on private firearms have much higher rates of suicide than the US, the UK or Canada.  Clearly, other factors are at play here.

Gun control advocates know full well that combining firearms suicides with firearms suicides is dishonest.  They simply do not care.  They are quite willing to make up phony statistics to support their positions.


Phony Comparisons

This is yet another way in which the gun control movement uses propaganda methods.  The perhaps most well known, of these false comparisons is comparing the number of suicides and homicides with the number of justifiable homicides.

The propaganda is presented as follows: "You should not own a firearm because a firearm in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.  THEREFORE YOU SHOULD NOT OWN A GUN."  Remember, this is the whole point behind this phony comparison.

Boy, it sure sounds like a gun in the home is a really bad idea doesn't it?  It sounds like the self-defense benefit is far outweighed by the danger, right?  WRONG!

The problems here are many:

Phony, invalid comparison: Is the purpose of a defensive firearm in the home to kill intruders?  NO, IT IS NOT.  The purpose of a defensive firearm in the home is to protect the occupants.  In the vast majority of cases this can be done without firing any shots.  When confronted with a firearm, most intruders will run.  In the minority of cases were shots are fired in defense, no one dies.  Justifiable homicides are only a tiny minority of defensive gun uses.   By including only cases where an attacker is killed, the anti-gun propagandists intentionally eliminate the vast majority of successful defensive gun uses.  Even the most conservative figures (sadly, no official figures are available) on defensive gun use result in dozens to hundreds more defensive uses than deaths.

What we do know that is more LEGALLY OWNED firearms results in less crime and fewer legally owned guns results in more crime:


US Gun Ownership and Crime Rates

UK Gun Ownership and Crime Rates
Notice that in the US, where more guns have been added to the civilian supply, crime is down.  In the UK, where government has actively worked to reduce gun ownership, crime is up!  Even within the EU, countries such as Sweden, Finland, Norway and Switzerland - where gun ownership is common, have low crime rates, while the country with the fewest legally owned guns - you guessed it - the UK - has the highest crime rate.   Simply checking official figures on Wikipedia will confirm this.

Inflated death figure: As we have seen above, firearms ownership does not causes suicides.  Again, gun control advocates, without disclosing it unless asked, combine suicides and homicides to massively inflate their death statistic.  In fact 87% or 37 of the deaths in this statistic are suicides.

While suicidal people will use firearms if they are available, they quite clearly will use something else if they are not - therefore, these deaths are not as a result of a firearm being present and should not be counted.


Mixed data set: So, at this point our invalid comparison is reduced to six domestic deaths for each justifiable homicide.  However, even this figure is not really accurate.  

In compiling this statistic, no effort was made to distinguish between firearms legally owned by law abiding citizens and firearms owned illegally by criminals, drug abusers and the mentally ill.  Obviously, these people are much more likely to kill - intentionally or unintentionally.  They are much more likely to leave a firearm unsecured where a child can find it.  In short, a huge number of the deaths must have come from this group. 

Additionally, no effort was made to distinguish between homes in which domestic abuse and/or alcoholism was present and those homes without such problems.  Again, common sense and experience tells us that the risk of domestic violence is much high in these homes than in healthy homes.

So, of what use is this phony 43:1 statistic to a healthy, mentally stable, law abiding citizen who lives in a home without substance abuse or domestic violence?  Answer: IT IS OF NO USE AT ALL.  It completely irrelevant to such a person.  It does not predict the risk for such a person or household - and yet, this is exactly how the gun control advocates use it.

Of course, this is but one example.  Simply ask yourself when a comparison is made: Is this a VALID comparison?


Phony Terms

The gun control movement loves to make up phony terms of their own.  The reason is simple: Once the term has been vilified in the eyes of the public, the gun control movement can then expand it's definition (because it really doesn't have one), while the opinion of the public at large does not change.  In short, the reason the that gun control advocates use phony terms is to deceive the public.

"Saturday Night Special", "Cop Killer Bullets", "Gun Show Loophole" and "Assault Weapon" are but a few examples of the phony terms used by gun control advocates.  Currently, the most used of these terms is "Assault Weapon", so let's look at the history of this term.

The gun control advocates initially chose the term "Assault Weapon" because it is so close to the real term "Assault Rifle" that the two are easily confused.

What is an "Assault Rifle"?  Invented by the Germans during WW2 and named by none other than Hitler himself, assault rifles are standard equipment in most of the world's armies.  To be an assault rifle, a rifle must have all three of the following characteristics:

1) Intermediate cartridge - It must fire a round less powerful than a full power rifle cartridge and more powerful than a pistol cartridge
2) Fed from a detachable magazine
3) Capable of BOTH semi-automatic and fully automatic fire

Legally, real assault rifles are machine guns.  As such, they are very tightly controlled and cannot be purchased in a typical gun store.  In fact, the number in civilian hands is so small that legal fully auto weapons cost tens of thousands of dollars.

A machine gun is legally defined as any firearm that fires more than one round per pull of the trigger.  In other words a machine gun can spray bullets.  In contrast, a semi-auto firearm, examples of which have been around for more than 110 years and are commonly used in hunting, can only fire one shot per trigger pull.

What civilians can and do own - in very large numbers - are semi-auto versions of the military rifles.  These are functionally no different than rifles that have been around since the early 1900s - but they look nearly identical to their military counterparts.  This provided an opportunity for gun control advocates to introduce confusion.

In the late 1980s, they coined the term "assault weapon" - and initially employed in only against guns that had fully automatic military versions.  Even though these firearms were FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL to all other semi-automatic firearms, they convinced many in the public that because of their appearance they were uniquely dangerous.   They were
The Rifles Above Actually Have The Same
Internal Parts - They Are Functionally
Identical - Yet The Bottom Firearm
Could Be Banned Based On Looks 
helped in this effort by a few police and media outlets that showed the fully automatic military versions being fired on full auto, and then referred to the civilian versions AS IF THEY WERE THE SAME GUNS.
 Of course, they weren't - but by now you know that lies are the gun control movement's stock and trade.


So, initially the gun control movement said, "We just want to ban these evil military rifles, not sporting or target guns."  (Never mind that the number one target gun in the US is the AR15.)  So, in my native State of California, these were banned in the late 1980s.  Next, having convinced the bulk of the public that "assault weapons" were terrible, they expanded the definition.  Now, any semi-auto rifle with a
The ONLY Difference Between These Rifles
Is The Stock - In CA The Bottom Rifle Is
Banned While The Top Rifle Is Not
detachable magazine and some much as one of five "evil, military features" (none of which affect the functioning of the firearm) was an assault rifle.
  This expanded the ban to hundreds of more models.  Finally, in 2014, gun control advocates in the California legislature expanded the definition to include any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine.  This would have banned virtually all semi-auto rifles - by calling them "assault weapons".   This was too much for even Democratic Governor Jerry Brown - who vetoed the bill.  However, you can bet your life that it will be back.


That is the pattern: Create a phony term, demonize it then, after the public thinks that type of gun terrible - expand the definition.  Classic deceptive propaganda.


Phony Solutions

By this I mean that in response to a tragedy - such as a mass shooting - gun control advocates rush to push gun control measures that would have not stopped, or even slowed, the tragedy.

Over the past three years, as we have been going through a cycle of mass murder incidents (historically, these horrible incidents do happen in cycles).  In response to every one of these incidents, gun control advocates have said the same thing every time: "This is why we need to close the 'gun show loophole' and establish universal background checks!"

Of course, there is only one problem: Every single gun used in these mass shootings was purchased at a gun store - where the buyer (usually the shooter) passed a federal background check!  None of these guns was purchased at a gun show.  None of these guns were purchased from a private party.  None were purchased by someone outside the shooter's household.  Some were purchased in states that required background checks on all sales and had their own system in addition to the federal system (such as California).  None of these measures stopped the shooters from buying a gun through legal, retail channels.

 
This attempted mass shooter (and murderer) should have been in the background check database - both because of criminal charges and a mental health commitment - but he passed a federal background check!  This is how every recent mass shooter obtained his guns.


Why is this?  Simple: The system's database is terribly flawed - and the only groups that seems to care is the gun industry and gun rights groups!    Gun control advocates do not care that the system's database is flawed - but they want it expanded to all gun "transfers".  This is why so many think the goal is not to stop criminals from getting guns - but to provide a paper trail for other purposes, such as future confiscation.

The fact that expanded background checks won't stop mass shootings is so firmly established that even a leading gun control advocate had to admit it!

However, you can be sure that the fact that it did not stop the mass shooter from obtaining firearms will not stop gun control advocates from proposing any and all "solutions" on their wish list.


Conclusion

I think I have firmly established that most gun control arguments are nothing but propaganda.  However, you can only fool the American people for so long before the see through you - and the good news is that more and more Americans are seeing through the phony gun control arguments.  That's why support for gun control is at an all time low.

One final thought: If gun control advocates have to habitually resort to these tactics - if they are the rule and not the exception - if they are used, not by individuals, but by well established gun control organizations - WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF THEIR ARGUMENTS?

Monday, November 2, 2015

Religious Leaders on Guns and Self-Defense

One of the major reasons why people own firearms is self defense.  The Supreme Court has held that this is one of the core reasons for the 2nd Amendment.  Yet, if one listens to the mainstream media, one wold think that all religious figures are opposed both to the ownership of firearms and the use of deadly force in the defense of self and others.  In reality, many religious figures have spoken in support of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms.  Consider these quotes:





“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;" Law of Moses Exodus 22:2-3 (NIV)









"He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 (NIV)









"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."
- St. Augustine











"Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one's goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor’s death.... In fact, this act is aimed at preserving one’s life or one’s goods and to make the aggressor powerless. Thus, it is a good act, which is the right of the victim."
- Thomas Aquinas






It is written [in the Taoist classic "Dao De Jing"] that weapons of war are ill-omened, and he who follows the Way of Heaven shuns their use, save when necessary. But those who take up arms when this is necessary, are also following the Way of Heaven. If you ask me why this is so, I reply that flowers and greenery bloom among the spring breezes, but they wither and fall in the frosts of autumn.
—Yagy├╗ Munenori, sword instructor and Buddhist scholar







“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - The Dalai Lama









Gun control is “a long-term assault on your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.” Richard Land, then the chief public policy spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention 






"….legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life.” Pope St. John Paul Evangelium Vitae 






"There is one principle which is eternal; it is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of the household, whenever necessity requires, and no power has a right to forbid it, should the last extreme arrive, but I anticipate no such extreme, but caution is the parent of safety." - Joseph Smith  (HC 6:605.)









“Violence exercised merely in self-defense, all societies, from the most primitive to the most cultured and civilized, accept as moral and legal.  The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi.” - Rev./Dr. Martin Luther King  

(It should also be noted that Rev.King applied for a carry permit under a Southern "may issue" system and was turned down because he was black.)


Those of us among the clergy who take a stand in favor of the 2nd Amendment and the right of self defense are in good company.   Many people who advocate the disarmament of the American public might be shocked to discover that many people they admire disagree!