Deafening silence

I seen the movie '42' last night. Very well done. Just a damn good movie, all across the board. Before bed, I started the tedious task of organizing the accumulated bookmarks on my Firefox browser. I like to to do this at least a few times a month just to keep things from getting out of hand and overwhelming. Being it was from the comfort of my bed, I knew I could muster every last ounce of energy out of myself before it was vanquished by the sandman. When I woke up and as I sat down at the table, I immediately came across this article.

Being it was early, without my bearings yet or maybe it was the coffee that wasn't even 1/3 of the way into the brewing process, I was really caught off guard. It was from March 22nd. This article was about the murder of a 13-month old baby-boy form Georgia inside his stroller.  


De'Marquise Elkins, a 17-year old black male along with another minor accomplice attempted what was said to be a random robbery. Getting nothing from the woman, they shot her and then turned the .22 caliber pistol on and shot her baby in the face, as he lay sleeping in his stroller just a few blocks from their home. This was AFTER telling the woman beforehand that they were going to kill her son.

Mr Elkins, with his "Thug Life" tattoo across his chest and a tear-drop tattooed in the corner of his eye (usually a gang symbol for a completed murder) awaits his fate in a jail cell in Georgia. The 13 month old, who never got to spoke his first words has no luxury of awaiting a trial. His parents, meanwhile, will live in some sort of a prison for the rest of their lives. His mother, second guessing what she could have done differently. Maybe if she only had some money? His father, what if he was there? What if he didn't go to work that day? 

So, as little Antonio Santiago rest in peace, where's the outcry been? Where is the Rainbow Push Coalition? Where is Jesse Jackson? A minority, a 13- month old boy gunned down in his stroller while he slept at point blank range by a couple of self-described "thugs" or at least those are the words one chose to brand his body with. Its been 42 days since the 21st of March. Not a peep.

Could it be because he has a white mother? Or because he has a Spanish last name and a Latino for a father? If it was a black baby, it would be a crime that these guns are on the street. It would be the gun makers fault. Or the states fault for not having tougher gun laws, I see you Chicago!! Because I'm 100% sure a background check could keep a gun out of these kids hands. Oh wait, they didn't buy the gun? Well, pull me up a chair!

Had this been reversed? And the thugs where white and the baby black? Well hell, you would have seen Jesse and Co do everything in their power to bring attention to the, his situation. The collective re-parting of the Red sea wouldn't be enough

Forty-two days and crickets from the race hustling pimps that call themselves the "black leadership". I know I have had plenty to say about this racist pig, Jesse Jackson. Am I beating a dead horse with this issue of hypocrisy? You bet your ass I am. Until this liar is called out for what he is and dismissed from the public lexicon by the black community, he claims to represent; I'm going to keep on pointing out their double standard - PC- hogwash every chance I get.

Jackie Robinson is a hero for all people but for black folks in particular and rightfully so. What he did was groundbreaking and uplifting. What Jesse Jackson does now is stale, contrived, racist and divisive. If we are to be asphyxiated by political correctness then its high time this man is stripped of his sub-prime fifteen- minutes and breathe the pillow himself.

Another positive gun story. Shhhhhhhhh

Yesterday, much to the delight of certain types of businesses that profit off of school shooting tragedies (read media), there was another school shooting, this one occurring in Atlanta. As of today the two victims were said to be a student who was shot in the back of the neck and teacher who had minor injuries from being trampled during the melee. The student, a 14 year-old, was not seriously injured and was remarkably released from the hospital the same day.

Now, there appears to be a motive regarding the shooter and the victim as there was said to be a dispute. So the likelihood of this becoming a massacre was unlikely. With that said, there were steps taken into consideration by the school beforehand to keep these things from escalating. First, they had metal detectors, obviously they weren't affective here but a barrier nonetheless. Secondly and most important, there was an off-duty Atlanta police officer stationed at the school as a resource officer; something I have advocated before. 


According to ABC, Atlanta PD Chief George Turner stated that an armed off-duty Atlanta officer was able to disarm the suspect MOMENTS after the shooting. Without even using his gun to do so. Kind of makes the point of a trained officer vs a kid with a gun, statistically speaking, its overwhelmingly in the officers favor. What if there is no officer there? We can assume because this was targeted it wouldn't have gotten worse but if he wasn't there... does this 14 year old kid walk up and "finish" off a obviously defenseless classmate?

Now, where is the coverage of this? Where is the ABC special edition where they cancel programming to fit it on-air in a timely fashion? Now obviously these are rhetorical questions, because there will be no extended coverage. There will be no interviews with family and neighbors nor will there be any candlelight vigils. All because tragedy was avoided. 

Seems backwards but the reality is we often celebrate tragedy and push to the back burner or simply just ignore situations when tragedy is averted. This isn't some "agenda" by the media, it's simply an indictment of what put's eye balls on the tube. Its a clear indicator of the average Americans tabloid love affair with sentimentalization, drama and tragedy. And to top it off, the likelihood of your child becoming a victim (0.00003% probability) of such an attack is about as likely as Jim Cook puts it:

As earth being hit by asteroid 2012 VE77 between the years 2033-2035.

 

As you can see, the homicide rate is actually falling considerably while school shooting's stay relatively the same and have never reached over 40 per year (with no disrespect to those effected of course). Yet here we sit, a large portion of the public using this terrible, yet extremely remote possibility as a pretext to start restricting gun ownership while ignoring the benefits of a gun in a school that just yesterday possibly prevented a massacre. I understand the American public for the most part is dumbed down and distracted but we are reaching all time lows for common sense collectively and the media is right there out in front like the Pied Piper.

Amerikan Stasi has a vital mission but whos the threat?

Has any weapon garnered as much attention in memory as the AR-15 has the last month? I can’t think of any weapon more demonized and we are talking about a weapon that only fires .22 caliber bullets. Well, the Ar-15 is in the news again this week and no, I’m not talking about the daily jib-jab about banning it. What I am talking about is the Department of Homeland Security’s recent request for 7,000 of these “assault rifles” that are supposed to be so dangerous.

Now let’s get one thing straight before we continue. Any gun in the wrong hands is dangerous but the gun isn’t what makes it dangerous per se, it’s the person holding it. An AR-15 is no more dangerous then a bottle of whiskey unattended; the whiskey isn’t going to consume itself and the gun isn’t going to shoot itself. So the common denominator… ah yes, humans are. Imperfect, emotional, crazy and often foolish humans are the problem not the inanimate object.  

So, the Department of Homeland Security puts in a large order for guns that are not fit for public use (personal defense weapons suitable for personal defense use in close quarters) or at least that is what those advocating #guncontrol would lead you to believe. My question or comment on this piece of news isn’t the hypocrisy because it’s rather obvious. No, my question is what exactly is the Department of Homeland Security up to? Let’s take a look at their mission statement taken right off their website:

The Department of Homeland Security has a vital mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 240,000 employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear - keeping America safe.

Seems rather ambiguous to me does it not to you? So they want to keep us safe from the many threats we face, presumably here in the homeland. Sounds about as clear a statement as the Navy’s slogan they been pumping out for the last few years:

“A global force for good”

Words like “good, safe many threats” all these are pretty loose terms and for good reason, what these agencies are doing is being as broad as possible. Why you say? To keep their options open. Who is an enemy and keep “us” safe from whom is about ambiguous as it is chilling. Now strap on your tin foil hats for a second, I don’t do this often but lets just look at a few more things regarding the DHS and play connect the dots.

Last year the DHS ordered 450 Million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition. Just a few months later there was an order placed for 750 million additional rounds but then after questioning it was deemed to be classified information. We also have Tim Brown from Freedomoutpost.com who reported last year about the DHS buying 700 pounds of High Density Ammonium Nitrate and 700 pounds of A-5 Flake RDX used to create “dirty” bombs. If that wasn’t enough even the Social Security Office is stalking up, buying 174,000 hollow point rounds. Hollow point rounds are made for maximum damage, expanding in the body thus no exit wound. Not exactly what you expect granny to see when going to get her check now is it?

Mass purchases of AR-15’s, billions of rounds, explosives… one has to ask himself what is Homeland Security getting ready for because it appears they are stock piling to wage war not just protect the border. Remember DHS’s slogan opening line: “to secure the nation from the many threats we face” With illegal immigration actually trending down whom is left to pose a threat? Now that you got your tin foil hat on nice and tight the answer is clear is it not? It’s you.

Rights are being infringed upon in the name of security. Entire sectors in business are being shipped overseas. College students are now going to school taking on debt and having no place to work to obtain money to pay back said debt. Income inequality like we have today hasn’t been seen since the 1920’s. 

Corporations are getting richer while wages continue to fall. The poorest live like the middle class without lifting a finger (to keep them occupied with their Obama phones and free housing and not in the streets rioting). The richest live like kings siphoning off obscene profits that would make Rockefeller blush. And who makes it happen for both?

The middle class. They just keep running on the hamster wheel afraid to become poor wanting to become rich while the poor are content and not too rowdy to cause a disturbance in the matrix. To top it off, while all this is going on... Inflation is building in reserves waiting to unleash like a tsunami as purchasing power is erodes with every dollar we flush into the system to prop up this pig economy that is nothing short of a mirage.
 

Call it what you will, class warfare. Crony capitalism. Tell me its not real and you looked outside and the sky isn't falling. Say what you will, but remember one thing. Civil unrest is the biggest threat to any power structure and this isnt going unnoticed by our government.

We are seeing the inevitable happen. It’s a game of musical chairs and the music is coming to an end. How soon it ends depends on how fast we lose confidence in that filthy dollar. I would love to quote Marilyn Manson here and end it with the line: “get your gun’ but it appears someone has beat me to the punch. But don't worry... their goal is clear "to keep America safe".

Democrat Sheriff goes HAM on Liberal gun grabbers.

"I'm Sheriff David Clarke and I want to talk to you about something personal: your safety. It's no longer a spectator sport; I need you in the game. But are you ready? With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option. You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. But are you prepared? Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there. You have a duty to protect yourself and your family."

I got a little tingle up my leg it appears?? Sign me up!!

This was a public service announcement on radio last week in Milwaukee courtesy of County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. Here is a man with a badge telling you that your best option for safety in Milwaukee is no longer calling your police it’s protecting you and your family with a fistful of steel (thank you RATM). 

 

Now of course this didn’t go over well with everyone in Milwaukee. The Mayor had this to say about Sheriff Clarke’s call for public action in arming themselves:

"Apparently, Sheriff David Clarke is auditioning for the next Dirty Harry movie,"

With layoffs and furloughs this could be a political sparring match with the Mayor and the Sheriff but the good Sheriff has held this strong belief even in the wake of Newtown. He went to as far call for an armed officer in every school in the country (which I strongly agree with).

Not to be undone, Sheriff Clarke had this to say about the Mayor:

"Several years ago, a tire-iron-wielding suspect beat Mayor Tom Barrett to within inches of his life. I would think that he would be a lot more sensitive to people being able to defend themselves in such instances. A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day."

Here we have an interesting situation. We have a man of the law who is actually a Democrat not only advocating for an increasingly armed public but also going out of his way to call those (read Liberals) that support gun restrictions what they truly are:

"Shame on liberals for exploiting tragedy once again in our country and try to use tragedy as a reason to take our rights away.  Liberals are shameful."

And you are never going to guess how the Sheriff suggests we pay for a cop in every school…

“With all the money we spend on going green projects and other waste of money social service spending we do."

Bu... bu... but we cant do that, what about global warming? It appears Sheriff doesnt care for talking points, now does it? Here is a Democrat, who won his last election with 70% of the vote, thinking outside the box and favoring people’s rights and security over those of the state’s; which naturally are seized when you deny the rights of the public. Does it get better than this?? 

Now ask yourself, where do you come in on this debate? Are you a “wolf at the door” as Sheriff Clarke called the criminal? Are you a sheep who is in favor of gun control? Or are you a man/women of free will who wants to maintain their God given rights to protect his/her life?

Now only if we could have this non partisan common sense in Washington.

‘Now is the Time’

This is the the President's "plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence”. This "plan" is what spawned the 23 executive orders on Jan 16, 2013. This has also been called the most comprehensive gun control legislation passed since 1968, eclipsing the "assault weapon ban" so often referred to now that was signed into law in the 1994 under Bill Clinton.

If we remember anything politically speaking about 1968 it would have to be the assassinations of Dr Martin Luther King & Robert Kennedy. The tightest gun control ever to that point was introduced before the deaths of both men but was quickly fast-tracked and passed after their murders. Reading a piece written about 1968 this week in regards to gun control reminded me of something I read in 2008 from then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel who was “advising” the newly elected President on crisis management:

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

As the President walked up on the stage this week and signed his executive orders into place all I could think about was at what ends will this lead to? Actually, it wasn’t soon after that initial thought before I came to the conclusion of not “what” ends, but “when” those ends will come. When will we see the end of the legal ownership of any firearm?

The right to own guns keeps man free. Free from the state or free from foreign invaders. It says so right in the 2^nd Amendment. I would find this humorous if it wasn’t so damn offensive.

The state piles up guns and then turns them on you and forces you to do as they say or they punish you with the threat of taking away your freedom which infringes on your liberty and pursuit of happiness. Seems like a conflict of interest regarding rights, no? Then, the state, despite all the guns and all the money, also does a piss poor job of keeping foreign invaders out of the country. From “terrorists” to illegal aliens the borders remain wide open.

If that wasn’t enough of a kick in the groin, the state also looks down upon militias, essentially blowing the 2^nd amendment out of the water on those grounds alone. The part about “a well regulated militia” isn’t time sensitive, regardless what anyone wants to say otherwise. There is no expiration on the meaning of the amendment, constitutional scholars be damned. These examples and the latest push executive order(s) are all attacks on not only our right to own firearms but it’s also an affront on our collective common sense.

 

When it comes to bureaucrats and the 2^nd amendment there seems to be a major disconnect. The 2^nd amendment is pretty direct, it’s pretty plain English. Thus, there is no reason to “read into” anything. Yet the federal government shows no respect for something so straightforward. Is this a coincidence? Not a chance.  
 

Semantics, are some of the firsts arrow pulled out of the quiver of control. Using wordplay and rearranging definitions to justify the means to an end – that is the ultimate goal of those in power. They also use situations and crisis to manipulate the public trading in freedom for security. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Bush did it, Clinton before him etc etc… this isn’t something new but I find it pretty interesting for a president who promised "transparency". Who ran on "change". It is what it is. Call it Machiavellian or call it just being a politician. Whatever the definition you  come up, see it for what it is.

The executive orders signed into place this week are centered on ‘assault rifles’. Now, ask anyone for a definition of what an assault rifle is and you are sure to get something different from everyone. So, what happens when banning ‘assault rifles’ or reducing magazines doesn’t stop school violence or mall shootings or movie theater shootings? Well, naturally the handguns will be next, just like they came for them in NY and Chicago. Then maybe we will see the call to ban “assault weapons”. And the assault weapons definition is about as ambiguous as you can imagine.

Here is a list of “mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks” in China from 2010-2012. China already has strict gun ownership laws, thus the truly dedicated to killing innocent will use any means necessary, as you can see. England (who else) has actually seen a push to eliminate “long pointed kitchen knives" to "reduce deaths from stabbing”. So again I ask: when does it end?

It ends when the anointed and "elected" say it ends. It ends when the calamities of life cease to exist. They won’t and that is the whole point. Let me leave you with this; and this will be the most important thing I will ever say on this topic.

The rush to get your gun, chipping away at your rights with one piece of legislation at a time is no accident. The state fears you. When it’s no longer able to control you with its debt mechanism and money manipulations… when it all comes tumbling down through hyperinflation or a spiral of irreversible deflation; the state will have to protect itself be any means necessary. The more the state can force dependency (SSI, welfare, food stamps, unemployment, low income housing, universal health care etc etc) the less important freedoms become or at least the dependency to live trumps freedom. The more divided we become, the easier it is to quell resistance. A people not divided and instead unified not to mention well armed is the ultimate threat to that power. 

The state fears you and me... and for good reason.

Piers Morgan: dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I was going do something on our out of control debt and the "looming" fiscal "cliff" but I was distracted reading this piece written by Piers Morgan of CNN published 12-29. The heading states he may deport himself if "America won't change its crazy gun laws". Now given such a heading filled with hyperbole you can expect the rest of his viewpoint will be littered with more attention whoring exaggerations and boy does he not disappoint. 

He starts out with his experience with guns. This, being a singular event, was a trip to Prague where he and some friends shot targets for a few hours and he said afterwards that the experience "quite demonstrably guns are killing machines".

I find that rather meaningless. For I, have never owned or shot a gun at any point in my life. I grew up in a single parent house with my mother and three sisters. Hunting is something I have never done either. But I don't have to hunt nor own a gun or to even have shot one to know guns are killing machines. After all, I have watched thousands of movies and played call of duty until the wee hours of the night (I’m just sticking with the meme). 

After setting up his "experience" he then proceeds to name drop his relatives who are employed in England with exposure to weapons as some type of twisted street cred:

"Well, I do know a bit about guns, actually. My brother’s a lieutenant colonel in the British Army and has served tours of duty in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. My sister married a colonel who trained Princes William and Harry at Sandhurst. My uncle was a major in the Green Howards."

I find this rather humorous. I have an Aunt & Uncle who both work in one of the biggest state universities in Pennsylvania in science. Both have their PHD's. I have three other Aunts who are teachers. I have a grandmother who retired with an MBA in accounting and a step father who has worked in a foundry for 35 years. I have a brother in law that is a barber. Do you know what i know about what they do?? Jack-shit. I would also find it disrespectful to assume that i know about what they do, in what, conversations over Sunday dinner at Nana & Papa's house? Please. 

 Mr Morgan demonstrates his arrogance and obvious agenda to make the world England when he uses the reasoning for owning the AR-15 Bushmaster (used in Newtown)  

"The only apparent reason anyone seems to offer up is that using such weapons is ‘fun’. One gun-rights guy I interviewed last week even said admiringly that the AR-15 was ‘the Ferrari of guns’."

When you see someone cite "One guy I interviewed" as backing you know to take that not with a grain of salt; but probably a quarry. Because the bullshit meter is broken. And if you say the "only apparent" reason "anyone" seems to offer up is 'fun' without any evidence, it just compounds the fact that you are basically making it up. What’s next, an "anonymous quote" from a “high ranking official” in the NRA doesn't “really like guns”? Wasn’t  'ol Piers an editor at a newspaper one time in England? 

Well, that doesn't surprise me. Have you ever read a newspaper from England? Look at the link for his piece; it’s plastered in 'tabloid-celebrity' nonsense. Hard news does not exist over there. How do I know? The paper 'has ads for other story's'. It 'apparently' must be devoid of hard news because I cant find a paper in England that doesn't cater to 'tabloid-celebrity' nonsense... see this subjective, make it up as see fit game can be fun and effective!

So, we have established Mr. Morgan's experience and his relatives with guns are bunk or meaningless to the discussion and probably just a cheap way to fill a word count commitment. We also know he has no reasons why people own guns, other than he says, they said: 'its fun'. So there is no opposite side in this piece with relative viewpoints, just his opinions.

Pictured in this article is a picture of a gun show. It also has statistics with gun sales exploding after these last few instances. It has a picture of a man at a gun show holding an AR-15. There is also the statistics that Americans own more guns per person than anywhere in the world outside of Yemen. Do you see the link? These gun sales are going to create more crime. But is that really true? 

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%     

During the offense that brought those offenders to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

This whole piece written by Mr. Morgan is centered on the use of semi-automatic weapons. So we are talking about 2% of felons using these types of guns. Two must be the magic number because only 2% of felons using a gun - get said gun, at a flea market or gun show. Talk about living on the margins? Maybe Mr. Morgan should spend some time in Switzerland where households pack fully automatic rifles and experience less crime than England, where he says there are only 35 deaths per year due to handguns.

Which I find odd considering this article written in the Wall Street Journal the day after Christmas by Joyce Lee Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School - who has written several books on the subject including: "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" 

In this article Ms Joyce points out that: 

"Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself."

 

If that wasn't enough Mr. Morgan points to a recent Gallup poll showing that: "58 per cent of Americans now support new gun-control laws, up from 43 per cent in 2011" He then says "that's a big jump"? 

You think? Does he even understand that his network is one of many that help perpetuate these acts by these deranged nut jobs and fears of the public by sensationalizing them at every waking minute to push their filthy ads? Mr. Morgan even takes aim at video games and movies... does he have no culpability in this? No of course not, because you're on television, dummy. Sixty million people watch you every night of the week, Monday through Friday. You make the news. You're God. 

Now allow me to weave this all together all nice and tight for you, using Mr. Morgan’s own words:

"This gun debate is an ongoing war of verbal attrition in America – and I’m just the latest target, the advantage to the gun lobbyists being that I’m British, a breed of human being who burned down the White House in 1814 and had to be forcefully deported en masse, as no American will ever be allowed to forget – Special Relationship notwithstanding. It’s no exaggeration to say that America’s unique fondness for guns pretty much got cemented by hatred of us Brits and the War of Independence. But the main reason the more fervent gun-rights activists give is a fear of their own US federal government using its army to impinge on their freedom"

Americans don't hate British citizens or look at them with disdain nor reject them simply because of their birthrights. We do have a problem thou with someone from another country telling us how we should change our laws and be more like the country that we fought from our independence from some 200+ years ago. Americans had to use guns to fight off tyranny in the form of the British government. Now you supported using guns to fight tyranny before:

" I’m not a pacifist. Guns win necessary wars and defeat tyrannical regimes like the Nazis"

I find it ironic you do not see the British government circa 1770 a "tyrannical" government. We agree the Nazi regime was just that. This, being the same Nazi regime that took the US and her (gun loving) involvement to keep England from being bombed into oblivion? You know what they say about history don't you, Mr Morgan? If its written by the victors and while we know who won WW2 and the Revolutionary War; maybe you're in need of a history lesson, chap?

Now i saved the best for last:

"Obama should follow up by launching a Government buy-back for all existing assault weapons in circulation (as worked successfully in Los Angeles last week). I would go further, confiscating the rest and enforcing tough prison sentences on those who still insist on keeping one. He should also significantly increase federal funding for mental health treatment for all Americans who need it."

Piers... lets scrap the history lesson, instead lets do a real quick American Civics primer. "He" is just a President, nothing more than a mouth piece for the corporate elite, like the guy before him and the guy before him and the guy after him and so on and so forth. We may elect lackeys and "yes men" but we don't elect Kings. Here all men are created equal; we don't value one person’s blood more than another.

You claim to "love" this country, despite the fact that it’s obvious you don't understand our financial situation as you are directing for "King Obama" to start "buy backs" and additional spending of revenue via mental health (has he not heard of Obama Care), when we are facing two trillion dollar deficits annually. You don't respect our history or even understand it. You want prisons sentences for people wanting to uphold their Bill of Rights. Your views are based on fringe ideas and failed data from England, the country you left - to obviously pursue something better for you and your family. 


 Let me offer you some parting advice courtesy of one, Mahatma Gandhi:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."(Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 Beacon Press paperback edition)

Jesse Jackson at his best - the spinning never stops.

Last night Chicago seen its 500th homicide for 2012, its highest total since 2008 and up from 435 last year according to the Associated Press. Out of these homicides 87.5% are via the gun which i find curious because Chicago, Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

After all this is a place where you can own a handgun (1) but it has to be in your home. It has to be broken down when transported (forget the right to carry) yet even after the modification of its laws in 2010 via the Supreme Court the murder rate is on the rise. Before 2010 it was illegal to own a handgun period in Chicago and the murder rates were through the roof. We are seeing the murder rates back at that level despite the fact that bill in 2010 was aimed at encouraging self defense allowing the right to own a firearm in your home, how so?

Simply put, the bad guys don't live in your home. They are out on the street or in the alleys, where its illegal to carry a weapon. Imagine that, a criminal not minding his local authorities and respecting its laws... why the good citizen does, unarmed.

This morning "Reverend" Jessie Jackson was on CNN discussing the murder rate in Chicago, his hometown. Now normally, when he opens his mouth, hes on the offensive, spitting out venom, bigotry and lies but here the Rev was on the defensive as he tried to make sense of hate crime rates in areas with strict gun laws. When he was asked why Chicago, despite her tough laws, still have exorbitantly high murder rates his first response:

“I think about Newtown, for example, they have three or four gun ranges. There are no gun ranges in Chicago”

Now, he also addressed socioeconomic reasons, and while those are contributing factors for the high murder rates, it doesn’t change the fact that gun laws restricting law abiding citizens to carry them only create more gun deaths. When asked again the same question regarding the gun laws on the books that don’t work, Jackson replied:

 “The guns are not coming from Chicago”

Well pull me up a chair, good Rev. So you are actually acknowledging that even despite strict laws severely restricting gun ownership and forbidding the right to carry; weapons are flowing into Chicago beyond the city limits resulting in spiked homicide rates? But i thought they were illegal, how can this happen? Where have we seen this before? Sounds a lot like the Federal governments "war" on drugs, doesn't it? As I asked yesterday, how is that working out?

Prohibition doesn't work because it does nothing to address why people need or want things others feel is too dangerous or destructive to own. Its simply one person (in a form of a bureaucracy) telling another person they know better than they do. It not only infringes on freedom of choice, prohibition also dissolves the natural existing relationship between supply and demand by simply chocking off supply. Again, nothing is done about the demand. This is how people like Al Capone became legends.

Now, if I could just take a minute to clear up one tidbit of misinformation courtesy of "Revered" Jackson. I did a quick search and found at least three gun ranges in the Chicago area. Remember, when Chicago City Council voted on the new ordinance back in 2010 after they were neutered by the Supreme Court, one of the requirements before owning a firearm is:

One hour on the range and four hours of training in the classroom

Maybe, someone would be kind enough to point out to Reverend Jackson the location of these firing ranges. But, he doesn’t need it. Why would he? He has bodyguards. Funny isn’t it? Kind of like the irony of the Pope Mobile. Where’s the faith Reverend?

Drag the waters some more...

Well, it’s been exactly two weeks since the senseless tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. I said to myself as that day unfolded, I would not be a part of the problem anymore. Regardless of how small my voice may be, regardless of how much impact media has or has not on events such as this... I decided that day, no mas.

As a fellow human, you cannot grasp the horror those kids and teachers faced on that morning. As a father, I will not even allow myself to even attempt to fathom the emotion of the loss of a child, sitting innocently in a kindergarten class room, counting down the days to Christmas. My heart truly goes out to those families involved. Only a small percentage of us have to bury our own children and for these families to have to do it because of something like this, is truly unspeakable, so I won’t even waste my words to do so any longer.

As soon as this happened everyone (and rightfully so) are looking for answers. Its human nature, we are creatures so dependent on emotion. However, with human nature and emotion come mistakes. The media fans the flames with its inaccurate reporting, hyperbole and this desire to beat the other guy to the punch. It wasn’t even 15 minutes into the breaking news report, not even into the three minutes of rolling ads for boner pills, Forever Lazy's and Pepsi commercials before we seen the graphics up.

Straddled across the screen like some stripper who is about to perform her 17th lap dance of the night (with 24 more to go) the slogan and graphic were dawned. "Tragedy in Newtown" - "Tragedy in Sandy Hook" - "Connecticut school massacre" etc etc etc. Hurricanes, school shootings, dead celebrities, Presidential speeches, court verdicts... yhea, we got a graphic for that.

Who can get there first? Who can take the best photos of the kids coming out, who can get the most exclusive interview with the person closest to the massacre? Get the Aunt of a dead teacher... or how about the step-mother of a child? A survivor?? Now, that is a real prize.

From media sensationalizing comes the blame game. Blame the guns (as if you need a link or a cite for this). Blame the games and the movies. Blame the mental health community or the lack thereof. Blame the devil. Blame Marylin Manson. Oh, wait I'm getting ahead of myself. Nobody listens to Manson' anymore... gonna have to find a new whipping boy in music I suppose. Can we use Eminem?  Even the conspiracy crowd has officially claimed the attack never happened. In fact "them" are said to be all in bed together to take over the world and all of the dead must be living happily ever after at the north pole. Lots of blame - but no solutions.

The truth of the matter will not require a retro fit band-aide that we as Americans like to use for everything. The wound is much larger than that but yet so small at the same time. That's because the wound is us. We as a people are the problem. Individual responsibility is the best cure for any problem we might encounter from mounting fiscal national debt to education failures in our schools to school shootings.

Individual responsibility is hard in this case because we depend on the schools to keep our children safe. And unless your child just so happens to be attending the one school  of a sitting Presidents children, no school is safe from this type of act, as it is, right now.

But do we have to settle for how things are right now? Or should we demand more? Buzzing people in and out of locked schools is a nice idea, but all someone has to do is smash the doors or windows to gain access to hundreds if not thousands of unarmed innocent people. That’s how these turn into bloody massacres. If we can’t turn back the hands of time and (un) invent the gun, the only solution is to fight fire with fire. And do it in every school in America. It’s done in many inner cities already and it’s obviously done for the President. If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.
 
This however isn’t the topic for those in mass media; instead their focus seems to be centered on the weapons and motives of past killers instead of focusing on protecting future victims. Making guns illegal in any way shape or form will not keep guns out of criminal’s hands. Don't believe me? Tell me.... how’s that "war" on drugs working out for you? A law or ban or restriction only creates a bigger black market and thus only supports more crime and senseless deaths. This is simply supply and demand.  Yet all we hear is  #guncontrolnow. Puzzling, it is, the inability for so many to not grasp simplistic approaches like cause and effect.

Switzerland has some of the highest gun ownership in the world with 45.7 guns per 100 residents yet their gun related crimes are so low they don't even keep records according to a piece written in the BBC last year. And many of these guns are fully automatic military grade rifles (M-57 Assault rifle pictured below). Those type of weapons are already ILLEGAL here and were not used in this case... yet we have a gun problem, and the Swiss do not?

Again, restricting certain guns or outlawing guns all together even will not stop senseless gun violence or school shootings. Only a gun can stop a gun. Kids in a school are locked up sitting ducks, thus security in the form of a regular beat cop should be in place at every school in the country. We put a man on the moon, invented the automobile, invented the computer... yet we cannot protect our children while at school getting their shitty education? And for those of you who say: "what are we supposed to do, put cops in the mall as well"?

The answer is simply, no. Because if we focus on individual responsibility (including but not limited to) on things like more concealed weapons permits for those that qualify; the coverage and overlap would police itself. If you put a gun in every school office in the country it would save more lives than it would ever take by just their presence alone. Not to mention, probably foil many attacks from happening in the first place. As time goes on, we are seeing battle lines drawn between people who want choice and freedom while others want to be directed and told what to think, what to believe and when to do it. Lets not let the second amendment be another victim when in reality its the only solution. We have too many Indians, we need more chiefs.

'If Jovan Belcher didn't possess a gun he and Kassandra Perkins would both be alive today."

With last weeks murder/suicide of Kansas City Chief Jovan Blecher and girlfriend Kassandra Perkins, people from all walks of life often found themselves involved in this discussion in some way shape or form. While many of the details and motives remain a mystery, one thing remains clear - guns, do not kill people, people kill people. Many in the last week that have used this tragedy as a vehicle for their own agenda regarding gun laws and gun control and to my surprise it wasnt just the usual suspects on the "left". NBC's Bob Costas used the quote in the title to lead into his viewpoints of gun ownership in the country in an NFL halftime segment in last weeks Sunday night broadcast; 24 hours after the tragedy occurred. 

Agree or disagree with Costas using a sporting event to tout his political beliefs isnt the issue i have. Anyone familiar with sports knows Costas isnt one that hates the sound of his own voice. So if anyone in sports would be ignorant or arrogant enough to wade into such a controversial issue as gun control; Costas would be the man for the job. My issue isnt with him doing so from a network that is pretty decidedly liberal when it comes to their news, after-all "Lean Forward" is not just a slogan - as a verb it quite literally means to "Progress" and "Progressive" is the new word for Liberal... thus there is no hiding that networks news affiliation.

No, my issue lies squarely on the back of this notion that taking guns out of the hands of individuals will have some type of magical impact on stopping murders. The liberal mind that is hell bent on gun control and this cockamamie idea that this tragic murder could have been prevented if Belcher did not own a firearm is absurd and its a mindset closer related to the book & movie: Minority Report, as opposed to reasoning and logic.

Jovan Belcher wasn't a felon, he wasn't known to be mentally unstable nor did he even have a record. There was nothing that could have been done to keep Mr. Belcher from owning a legal firearm and obviously there is nothing that could have been done to keep him from owning one illegally either. So the issue isnt gun control or tighter restrictions; it is obviously gun ownership... period. That is not only an attack on the 2nd amendment its also a mistake on those that advocate such; as its the road to tyranny. Taking guns out of the hands of the public will not reduce crime, if anything, it will only create more of it and a bigger black market that already exists to support it. Dont believe me, ask the government how the war on drugs is going? How did the prohibition of alcohol work out?


According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a report from the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

• a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
• a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
• family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Some nut can get a gun legally or illegally and nothing will stop him from executing his despicable act before it happens. Some law abiding citizen can become emotional and beat his or her significant other with a bat or use a knife or shoot them with a gun and nothing will change that, the means that are used are of ill consequence. Crimes of passion and fits of rage are human problems, its not the choice of the instrument used to carry it out that's at fault. Trying to isolate one weapon as a problem where 99% of its owners never have to use it is just plain irresponsible. Bottom line: its just not possible in an open and free society to protect everybody from themselves.  

You want to stamp out gun violence? Allow and encourage more people to carry one. Every time there is a tragedy concerning gun violence the knee jerk reaction is the guns and the access are the blame and it couldnt be any further from the truth. The reason that one gun in a crowd of people can do so much damage is that not enough law abiding citizens carry a weapon. An overwhelming majority of gun related deaths are involving one person being armed and another person not being armed. How do you make these situation less damaging? Again... allow and encourage more people to carry a firearm.

If Mr Belcher didnt own a firearm would it have prevented her death? No idea, who knows what he may have picked up or did to her with his hands... and NFL linebacker doesnt need a gun to cause bodily harm to a women. If she had been carrying would this have prevented the death of Kassandra Perkins? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is assured... it would at least bettered her odds, without question. And that is the point, its basic mathematics... guns are the great equalizer and ill use this Ronald Regan quote to kill (pardon the pun) two birds with one stone:

"The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all."