The Orlando Terror Attack - It's Not About Guns, It's about Radical Islam

I’ve been staring at this blank page for the last few days. I’ve felt an urge to write, but the words have alluded me. It’s not that I don’t have anything to say, I am from New York City, after all, it’s just that I have too much to say and I am not even sure where to begin.

Now I know some of you will immediately want to know why I am not writing my latest book, but I promise you, I am. I just needed to get this off my chest.

The problem probably started where it always does, on Facebook. I’m not exactly sure what we did before FB, but I vaguely recall that it was a much more productive time. My quandary exists because I have what can best be described as very eclectic friends, who have posted a wide range of responses to the Orlando terror attack. What saddens me is the fact that there has even been a ‘wide range’ of responses.

In just over forty-eight hours I have heard some of the following diatribes play out in social media:

• The attack in Orlando was a hate crime.
• This has nothing to do with moderate Islam.
• We need to ban these senseless weapons of war.
• The police responded slowly because it was a LGBT club.

Let us set the record straight right from the beginning. This was, first and foremost, a terror attack committed by radical Islam. Anyone who wants to muddy the waters by mincing words is being disingenuous. When some try to claim that this was a hate crime, they are attempting to minimize the significance of what occurred at the Pulse Nightclub. While hate certainly played a role in the attack, it was part of a much larger picture that many are attempting to gloss over: Radical Islam.

This attack was carried out as a direct result of the theological beliefs of a particular group. Unfortunately, for some strange reason, a large majority of our politicians, pundits and ordinary people refuse to accept this. If I had a dollar for every time I heard: “These acts don’t reflect moderate Islam…” I’d be living on a tropical island, without Wi-Fi access, in a perpetual state of bliss.

The question then is: What is moderate Islam and what do they believe?

The answer to this question is one that many do not want to hear. They want to believe in this illusion that there is a moderate world that just chooses to remain quiet, yet when you pull back the thin veneer, you see a world that doesn’t seem all that different from the radical.

I see you in the back, waving your hand like a maniac, and yes, I know you know a Muslim who is moderate…… and I know a lot of Catholics who live their lives quite differently then what is taught in the Bible. Hell, I used to be one of them. I was even an altar boy…… stop chuckling. The fact is that there is a big difference between calling yourself something and actually being engaged. I am talking about those who actually believe in and follow the teachings of the Qur’an.

In considering political rights and civil liberties, the vast majority of countries in the Middle East are simply not free. At least not the ‘being free’ which those of us, here in The West, think of. I am often amazed when I see groups, who identify themselves as feminists or members of the LGBT community, come out in support of moderate Islam, yet in the majority of those Muslim countries they would face severe penalties and even death for their beliefs. It’s tantamount to seeing a ‘Jew’s for Hitler’ sign.

The simple truth is, that even in moderate Islamic countries, the penalty for being homosexual is: prison, punishment and / or death. I’m not talking about Iran, or one of the other hardline countries, but the moderate ones like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar. If you are lucky enough to be a lesbian in Kuwait you get a free-pass, but males are still breaking the law…… don’t ask, I scratched my head on that one as well. These moderate nations have even used their influence to block advancements in LGBT rights at the United Nations.

Unlike the west, which enjoys a separation between politics and religion, the Muslim world does not. For some unknown reason, many people don’t understand or accept that theology is the driving force in Islamic government. Islam is not just a religious belief system, but a legal system as well. Sharia law is the religious legal system governing the members of the Islamic faith. And therein lies the real problem.

The lives we enjoy in western civilization are in direct opposition to the Muslim world. They don’t believe in our values and they don’t respect that we recognize individual rights.

In the United States we have the 1^st Amendment right to freedom of speech. It means that I don’t have to agree or even like what you say, but you still get to say it. What I find extremely funny is the fact that all of the real cutting edge comedians and Hollywood celebrity types have a field day mocking Jesus, yet those same folks are nowhere to be found when it comes to mocking Muhammad. Ever wonder why? That’s because death threats don’t seem to lose any of their significance when they come from moderates.  

The Avant Garde folks over at Charlie Hebdo decided to push those boundaries, it didn’t end well for them.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with Muslims. In fact, I’ve had the pleasure of working side by side with many of them during my career. I respect them, but I also understand that we have very different belief systems. If my path took me to a country where Islam was the rule, then I would act accordingly, but here in the United States, it is not, and that is what has always made us great.

Unfortunately for us, it seems the principle of America being one great ‘melting pot’ has been forgotten. Instead of people coming to here to become Americans, we have more and more people coming here who want to change us into something resembling what they left.

In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt made a speech regarding the assimilation of immigrants into American culture. It was true then and even truer now:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." 

Why is this important? Because America is different.

Contrary to what many ill-informed people believe, we are not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. What this means is that we are a country where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law which limits the government's power over citizens. It is sometimes referred to as the rule of law, not man.

Why is this significant?

Because in a democracy, that is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves as well as the minority opposition.  Simply put, without the constraints of The Constitution, the majority can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights.  Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism.

This brings us to the 2nd Amendment and the current argument that certain guns need to be banned; for our own good.

You might not like guns and that is your right, but you simply don’t get to choose that for me. That might not sit well with you. You might be one of those enlightened folks who believe that, by simply getting rid of all the guns, the world will be one big happy family and that is within your 1^st Amendment right to profess, but I also have my 2^nd Amendment right just in case you are wrong.

It’s like that old adage: Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.

The truth is that we cannot legislate morality. 

I’m truly sorry for the loss of lives in Orlando, but if anyone believes that the sole responsibility for what happened resides with a mechanical object, I suggest you seek some immediate help. In over two decades in law enforcement I have had a front row seat to man’s inhumanity to man. In his desire to kill another, man has no limitations. I have seen baseball bats, hammers, steak-knives, cars, ropes, broom-sticks, machetes, rocks, handguns, dogs,  arson, poison, swords, rifles / shotguns, explosives, and planes, along with a few I have probably forgotten, used to kill other human beings.  This absurd belief that, by somehow removing one item from the inventory list, we will somehow be able to bring peace to modern civilization is not only patently false, but extremely dangerous.

We look for simplistic answers to complex questions that we don’t want to address, like thinking we can we hangone of those stupid little 'no gun' placards outside of or homes, schools and offices and think that we are safe.

Let us take the 1994 ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ as an example. This was supposed to cure everything. In fact, after the Orlando terror attack, many are calling for its re-instatement. The truth however is much different than what the politicians and pundits would lead you to believe. A number of academic studies determined that this ban had little to no effect on gun violence and that the re-institution of the ban would have no significant merit.

Now granted, when we have an attack like this, it does seem to grab the headlines, but is it the gun or the person wielding it that is the real problem?

There’s the complex question that no one wants to address.

Whether it was Adam Lanza, Nidal Hassan, Jared Loughner, Dylan Roof, James Holmes, and now Omar Mateen, each had clearly observable mental health issues that went unreported / unaddressed. These issues should have precluded them from having access to any firearm. In essence, they were already breaking the law long before they ever pulled the trigger.  Unfortunately, society does not have an answer for mental health issues, so they look to shift the blame to something else and that is most often guns. Guns can be banned and restricted. Politicians can pass more laws and the media can sing their praises, at least until the next shooting.

You know, it is kind of ironic.  After every terror attack I hear the admonishment that we shouldn’t judge all of Islam because of a few bad ones. When we have a mass shooting, the mental health community is quick to remind us that we should be wary of stigmatizing the many, in an attempt to stop the few. Yet if the NRA, or a responsible gun owner, protests, they are quickly attacked as being evil.

We don’t want to fix the problem; we simply want to pass the buck.

Which brings me to my final thought: Blame the police.

It seems that our men and women in law enforcement have become the political piñata when all else fails.  To aggressive, not aggressive enough, too militaristic, ill-equipped, and the complaints and accusations just continue to flow, ad nauseum. They speak of them in abstract, as if they are some foreign entity brought in to punish them.

I have a question for those who enjoy bashing the police: just where exactly do you think they come from?

In over two decades of law enforcement I worked with people from every walk of life: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and the list goes on. The NYPD is comprised of well over fifty thousand uniformed and civilian members which covers the entire spectrum of the population of New York City.

We are not aliens, recruited from some distant planet, and brought here to subjugate the people.

We are the people.

We have just chosen to be that thin blue line which separates the innocent from the evil in the world. 

One of the best analogies I have ever read was Lt. Colonel David Grossman’s On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs.

Simply put: We hunt the evil that you pretend doesn’t exist.

This vilification and dehumanizing of law enforcement is done for one purpose and that is to pretend that the underlying problem is someone else’s fault.

I read a 2015 New York Times article that outlined a series of seventy-three (73) fatal police shootings, over the course of a 1 year period, from August 2014 to August 2015, throughout the United States. While the story strives to paint a picture of cops killing unarmed people, I could not help but note, that in all but three cases, the shootings where the end result of what started off as some type of criminal activity.

Look we have to be honest about things. Cops are not rolling down the streets of Chicago’s South Side doing drive-by shootings. Nor are they pulling up at playgrounds and schools to pop off a few rounds for giggles. In my twenty-two year law enforcement career I never worked with a cop that put on his gun belt and said ‘God, I hope I get to cap someone tonight.’ Yet, if you listen to the media and all the activists, you would think this nation was being patrolled by brutal mad-dogs Hell bent on killing everyone they encounter.

It should come as no shock to anyone that there are criminals in the world. If you engage in criminal behavior, eventually you will cross paths with law enforcement. There are unintended consequences of actions. Does that mean you should be killed for breaking the law? Of course not, but if it is 2 a.m. and you are coming out of a home, that you just burglarized, and you quickly reach into your waistband, as the cops approach you, there is a very good chance you are going to get shot. If it turns out you didn’t have a gun, well what can I say? Your mother raised an idiot.

I’m reminded of the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri. Here is someone who just robbed a store, then assaulted a police officer, while attempting to get control of his firearm, and then after running away, turned and charged back toward the officer. He was shot and killed.

The media and the political activists attempted to paint this picture of a mad-dog cop who gunned down an innocent child. The fact that the innocent ‘child’ was 6’4”, weighed 294 lbs., and had drugs in his system at the time of his death, seemed to somehow get lost in the translation.

• Crime 1 – Illegal Narcotics
• Crime 2 – Robbery
• Crime 3 – Assault / Attempted Robbery
• Crime 4 – ?

Well, let’s just say that I don’t think he was running back to surrender. Remember, “Hands Up – Don’t Shoot” was definitively proven to be a lie by eye-witnesses who testified that they believed Wilson’s life was in danger and that he fired in self-defense.

I’m sorry, but these are the unintended consequences of a criminal behavior.

Did Darren Wilson get up that morning thinking he was going to kill someone? No.

Did Michael Brown get up that morning thinking his illegal actions would lead to his death? No, and that is the problem.

We have turned a corner in society where we are abdicating personal responsibility. We are living in a new world, where it is always someone else’s fault for our actions and more and more people are buying into that premise.

• Bad grades in school: The teacher is at fault.
• Choose to pursue a useless degree program in college and now you can’t find a job when you graduate:  Greedy capitalism.
• Engage in bad behavior: The U.S. is a brutal police state.

I understand the allure. Let’s face it, who wouldn’t want to enjoy all the benefits, but none of the responsibility for ones actions?  But this is the real world.  The politicians and activist’s lie to you, the media paints a narrative they want you to believe, but ultimately it is up to us to search for the truth.

In the aftermath of the terror attack some are claiming that the police were at fault, that they were slow to respond because it was only a LGBT bar.

I was not there so I won’t comment on the tactics that were used, unlike some self-proclaimed experts who jumped at the chance to promote themselves. I will say that the moment Omar Mateen took hostages inside the club, and claimed to have explosives that he was going to strap onto the hostages, the entire situation changed.

Imagine the headlines Sunday morning had the police immediately entered and he detonated a bomb killing countless people. The press would have crucified the entire police department as well as the mayor and everyone in city government.

The problem with Monday morning quarterbacks is that, in most instances, they have never actually played the game, but have the luxury of being right 100% of the time. This causes them to think they are smarter than the people who actually do the job. Sorry Skippy, but you don’t get the right to judge me from your living room, twenty-four hours after the incident. You want to play Mr. or Mrs. Expert? Then I suggest you put on a uniform and get some skin in the game.

You might find that the BB gun, which looks so obviously fake, under the brilliant light of the TV cameras, looks a helluva lot more realistic at 1 a.m. when it is being pointed at your face.

In law enforcement this is called: damned if you do, dead if you don’t.

To the members of the LGBT community, don’t think for one second that the cops in Orlando did things any differently because it was a gay club. We don’t play games like. You needed help and they came and I can state with almost absolute certainty that in the group of cops who responded that morning a number of them were also members the LGBT community.

We are not the enemy, we are you.

The real enemy is the politicians we have elected. They don’t want to be bothered addressing the real problems and finding actual solutions; that would take honesty and require actual work on their part. They count on our ignorance and drive the wedge of division between us. One day soon we will have to wake up and realize that we are not Republicans or Democrats, but Americans. Only then will we be able to finally fix what is truly broken.

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

The Curious Case of Donald Trump

Donald J. Trump

Unless you have been hiking the Amazon for the last few months, chances are you have watched the juggernaut that is Donald Trump crashing through the caucuses and primaries being held throughout the United States.

What had started out as a fad, in most voter’s minds, has become a steamroller; crushing the competition one voting booth at a time. So why has someone like Donald Trump, a man who has never held any type of political office, suddenly become the front runner in the 2016 presidential race?

Truthfully? Most likely the reason is the fact he has never held political office.

What I find truly interesting are the protestations that are coming from both sides of the aisle.

What you are witnessing is not so much a validation of Mr. Trump’s bona fides, as much as it is a repudiation of the party system here in the United States. Plain and simply put, Americans are growing increasingly weary of the political bullshit being heaped on them by anyone with the letter (D) or (R) after their name. And why shouldn’t they? 

For decades we have been cheated, ignored, marginalized, and lied to by those we have elected. Rather than do the work of ‘We The People,’ they have instead done the work of ‘We The Party.’  Anyone who truly believes that politicians go to Washington to help you, probably needs to sit down and binge watch a season or two of House of Cards. 

For as long as I can remember, and certainly for as long as I have been voting, I have witnessed one politician after another promise that they were: a) going to Washington to fight for me, b) change the tone of politics, c) be my voice in Congress.  

And just how many of those promises were kept? None.

To be fair, it’s not all their fault. We have a level of complicity in all this. I liken it to the parents who send their kid off to college with a credit card to be used for emergencies. Then, when they get the bill showing it was maxed out, they yelled at their kid to be more responsible and sent them a new card. The truth is we stopped holding our elected representatives accountable for their actions a very long time ago; so is it any wonder that they look down at us with contempt?

No, the majority of folks in D.C. have only one thing on their mind when we elect them and that is getting re-elected. Old Joe or Janey might have needed you to elevate them to their perch, but they really need the party to keep them there. That means doing what the party wants, rather than what you want.

Ever wonder why that ‘fiscal conservative’ you sent to D.C. suddenly is listed as a co-sponsor on a bill that is wasteful? Party politics, plain and simple. Vote the way they want you to, or watch your re-election war chest wither away like a slug in a sandstorm.

People in D.C. are a special brand of hypocrite.

They are the same ones who lose their mind when Donald Trump doesn’t disavow David Duke or the KKK ‘fast enough,' yet are completely silent on the fact that Hillary Clinton once referred to the late Senator Robert Byrd, himself an actual member of the KKK and an Exalted Cyclops, as her mentor.

They are the same folks who claim that judicial nominations in a presidential election year should not go through, when the sitting President is not a member of their party, yet demand that it go through when he is.

This is not a swipe at any one party, but examples of hypocrisy that both sides are guilty of. The real problem is when We The People are too blinded, too entrenched by party politics to see that neither side has our best interests at heart.

Now I don’t know if Donald Trump will become the party nominee, but one thing is for certain, the Republican Party is on very thin ice right now. In fact, I would venture to say that the fracture that is growing is at a critical juncture.

The rank and file members of the Republican Party are tired of the nonsense. In 2011 they sent a strong message by electing 242 Republicans to congress, the most since 1947. John Boehner was sworn in as Speaker of the House and the members waited. Unfortunately, the news was bleak. The Congress couldn’t do anything, because the Democrats controlled the Senate. They changed that in 2015 when they also gave Mitch McConnell the Senate. Yet despite the unequivocal mandate, many felt that the establishment was ignoring them.

Charles M. Schulz / United Feature Syndicate

It soured a great many, who began to consider whether the party was really interested in doing their will or the party’s will. The rank and file began to see themselves as Charlie Brown, while the establishment took the role of Lucy Van Pelt, giddily snatching away their political ‘football’ at the last minute. In the end, it took down the speakership of John Boehner and ended his congressional career.

Last September the RNC strong armed Donald Trump into signing a loyalty pledge, a pledge that was ultimately signed by all 17 Republican presidential candidates. Each one pledged to support the GOP's eventual presidential nominee in what RNC chair Reince Priebus called a sign of party unity. Unfortunately, in September of 2015, no one really thought Donald Trump had a snowballs chance in hell of being that nominee.

Surprise, Surprise, Reince………. Didn’t see that one coming, did you?

So now come the knives in the back, fitting in a way, since we are quickly approaching the Ides of March.

Donald Trump has won ten of the last fifteen state elections, while Cruz has won four and Marc Rubio has won only one. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that at this point there is no way, short of Trump and Cruz walking off hand-in-hand into the sunset, that Rubio could amass enough delegates to get the nomination. So why is he still running? Why are all the ‘establishment’ people supporting him?

Because he is the establishment’s choice. He has been ordained, just as Hillary has been on the left.

It’s the same reason that they whipped out old Mitt Romney, a man who single-handedly managed to rip defeat from the jaws of victory, to excoriate Donald Trump. Really? This is the same man who, back in 2012, said: “Donald Trump has shown an extraordinary ability to understand how our economy works,…. It means a great deal to me to have the endorsement of Mr. Trump.”

Hypocrite much, Mitt?

The truth is the establishment does not know what to do. Donald Trump is a threat to them, to their very way of life. He’s brash, he's bold and he's a media darling: @RealDonaldTrump He is also rich enough that he doesn’t need them. At the end of the day, that’s what scares them: a candidate who doesn’t need them or, more importantly, their money.

However, what they fail to realize is that there is something even more dangerous to them and that is a membership base that has become completely disenfranchised with them. This isn’t true for just the republicans either. Polling indicates that a lot of democrats are beginning to feel this way as well, as witnessed by the defection of 20k plus in Massachusetts since January. Is this a trend that we will see continue through the election cycle? Only time will tell, but it should serve as a wake-up call to those in charge that the people of this great nation are fed-up with politics as usual.

I don’t know how Donald Trump would be as President. Some contend that he will be the same bombastic individual he presents on reality television while others say that he is a savvy businessman who will help lead us away from the precipice of financial doom. Who is right? I don’t know.

What I do know is that over the last eight years we have seen the promise of ‘hope and change’ fade away into more of the same. The political rancor is at an all-time high and growing nearly as fast as our national debt. Watch any political interview once and you can recite the other dozen appearances because all that is regurgitated is party approved talking points. Our elected officials repeatedly lie to us, about things big and small, and we tolerate it. Yet ask the same people if their kids acted the same way and they’d tell you they would immediately put foot to ass. Obviously we have much more lenient standards when it comes to those ruining, I mean running, our country.

So here are your choices:

• Marco Rubio – Attorney / Career Politician - 1 term US senator.
• Ted Cruz - Attorney / Career Politician - 1 term US senator.
• John Kasich – Investment Banker / Career Politician – 9 term US congressman / governor
• Hillary Clinton - Attorney / Career Politician - 2 term US senator / Secretary of State
• Bernie Sanders – Community Activist / Career Politician – 8 term US congressman / 2 term US senator

Notice a trend here? Does it sound a bit familiar?

• Barrack Obama - Attorney / Community Activist / Career Politician - 1 term US senator.

There is an old saying that goes: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

We are nineteen trillion dollars in debt and growing. Eighteen trillion of which we have added in the last 34 years!! Think about that for a moment. We rack up debt like the energizer bunny main-lining speed. Seriously, it’s like ten grand a second. Take a look at the Debt Clock. The numbers rotate so fast that you’ll need to take Dramamine to watch it.

In 2015, we brought in 3.1 trillion dollars and spent 3.7. This isn’t an anomaly. Over the last seventy-five years there have only been 12 years we have kept our spending under control. That means both parties have pissed our money away like drunken sailors all while pointing the finger at the other person when it comes time to pay.

And what do we get from our politicians? Reforms? No, don’t be silly, we’re just going to spend our way out of debt…… If we ran our personal lives like this we would be homeless or in jail.

It has been said that Donald Trump started out with around $200,000.00 after college. By 1982 his worth was estimated at around $200 million. When his father died he inherited an additional amount, possibly as high as another $200 million. Today his worth is in the billions. Some might squabble about it, is it two billion? Four billion? Eight billion?....... seriously? I don’t care if it’s only one billion. The bottom line is that he obviously has a knack for taking money and making more. Perhaps we should take the reins away from the career politicians and give it to a career businessman.

I’ve had enough with the career politicians and their hollow promises. Trump might not be the answer, but I know the other five knuckleheads certainly aren’t.

The one thing I do know about Trump is that he surrounds himself with the right people and he listens.  Is that any different than what any President does? Maybe it’s time to give Trump a chance.

What’s the worst that can happen? We rack up trillions in debt, the Middle East falls apart, illegals flood across the border, our enemies don’t respect us and our allies don’t trust us………. ? Sounds like a normal Tuesday under the current administration.

But hey, at least Whoopi Goldberg, Kanye West, Cher, Al Sharpton, Miley Cyrus and Rosie O’Donnell will be another countries problem. I'd call that a win! #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

But what do I know? I'm just an old retired NYPD sergeant who writes books about cops, criminals terrorists and politicians. 

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

A closer look at the 'Common Sense' gun laws

I’m not an asshole, at least I don’t try to be, but sometimes my posts can come off a bit snarky at times. I blame it on the NY’er in me and my sometimes failing attempt at humor, at least that’s what my loving wife calls it.

The reality is that I try to be as open as possible when it comes to other’s positions, but lately it seems as if all that happens in ‘discussions’ is an inevitable breakdown in communication which usually leads to such name calling as: Liberal Lunatic, Teabagger, etc..  Once that occurs, civil discussion goes right out the window.

Now as we get ready to close the book on 2015, and move into the last year of the President's term, It is anticipated that he will make a move to bi-pass Congress and begin enacting some form of gun control through Executive Action, which is a topic for another day.

So I decided that I would try and take a revised look at this whole ‘common sense’ gun law thing and explain the reasons why I believe this is not realistic.

So what exactly are the new ‘common sense’ gun laws that folks on the left are proposing?

1.        Re-authorize the Assault Weapons Ban
2.       Stricter background checks
3.        Close the gun show loophole
4.        Denying guns to folks on the terror ‘no fly’ list.
5.       Ban large capacity magazines
6.       Ban fully automatic weapons

I’m even willing to go out on a limb and throw in the old stand-by:

1. No one is trying to confiscate your guns

For the record, I spent twenty-two years in law enforcement. I tend to be one of the folks that believe in the law and, more importantly, that our laws should be enforced. So you would think that I would be in favor of these ‘common sense’ gun laws, but I’m not and here is the reason why.

The Assault Weapons ban of 1994 restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for: a) those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment; b) 660 rifles and shotguns listed by type and name; c) permanently inoperable, manually operated, or antique firearms; rifles unable to accept a detachable magazine of more than five rounds; d) shotguns unable to hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; e) and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The ban had outlined specific cosmetic features that would classify a firearm as an assault weapon. For example, rifles and shot guns could not have folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts (my particular favorite, it was just a small little hunk of metal for crying-out-loud), flash suppressors or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor (why, what was so inherently wrong with trying to cut down on muzzle flash?). The bill also went so far as banning an attachable grenade launcher. (Really? Another obscure little hunk of metal bites the dust).

The problem is that the ban defined the term ‘semi-automatic assault weapon,’ which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round with each trigger pull. It was sort of a political shell game, because the term assault weapon was also commonly used to refer to some military weapons. The similar, but more technical accurate assault rifle, referred to military rifles capable of selective fire (Fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire). What they didn’t tell you was that these weapons are considered Title II weapons and were already regulated by the National FirearmsAct of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Neither the original ban, nor its expiration, changed the legal status of automatic firearms.

The reality is that the Assault Weapons Ban should be referred to as the Spooky Weapons Ban, because it is consistently portrayed in the media that way. Essentially, if it looks evil then it is evil. Unfortunately, it is tantamount to slapping a Lamborghini emblem onto a Prius and claiming it is a sports car.

Now, I can understand this confusion with the public. The fact is that our president doesn’t even understand it. After the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama referred to the weapon used as being fully automatic and he also seems to think that there is no apparent difference between assault weapons and machine guns. Likewise so does Hillary Clinton, who in 2008 called for sensible regulations to “keep machine guns away from folks who shouldn't have them” and has continued to champion for more restrictions. I guess our much vaunted former Secretary of State hasn’t heard of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Interesting enough, after the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Gail Collins, of the New York Times, said that "the San Bernardino murderers were wielding assault rifles, with which they were able to fire an estimated 65-75 bullets in rapid succession." Collins also said that these assault weapons are "the armament of choice for mass shootings." The truth is they aren’t, as you will see in a moment. Collins was factually incorrect on both issues. So if the politicians and the press get it wrong, you can understand why the average citizen is confused.

How exactly did the much touted original ban workout? Well, not so well. Several academic studies, including the NRC, determined that the ban showed no clear impact on gun violence. The fact is that the pre-ban use of these types of weapons was rare to begin with. Their position was that, should the ban be reinstated, that  “its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as ‘assault rifles’ or ‘assault weapons’, are rarely used in gun crimes.” A position which I can personally attest too, based on my career in law enforcement.

So, if a new ban won’t work, perhaps stricter background checks would. Ok, I’m going to take a step out onto the ledge here and say “psst….. I agree”. Okay, get up off the floor, it isn’t that shocking. In fact, I think a lot of folks would say that they feel as if there should be more stringent checks. The problem here is who is going to do it and what will it encompass? Right now, each state has their own criteria. I agree that should be amended, but you have to be intellectually honest and admit that the federal government doesn’t exactly shine here. Consider for just a moment that some of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas. The Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was known to the FBI and was even being investigated for a triple homicide. One of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, who came here on a K-1 visa and was fully vetted, but the address she gave in Pakistan was non-existent. Neither her, nor her husband, had any criminal record nor were either of them on any terrorist watch list. Now granted, while these are notorious examples, they still serve as a reminder that simply saying that people are ‘checked’ doesn’t really mean a lot. Let’s not forget that the agency you would think would be able to be the keeper of records, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, doesn’t exactly have a stellar record of being able to track guns used in their own sting operation.

But let’s just say that we somehow came up with an all-powerful, all-knowing, federal agency that could handle it. What should be on it? Or maybe we could come up with a list of those who shouldn’t be on it. Persons arrested for violent felonies? Yeah, that’s a good start, but wait, should it be arrested for or convicted of? What about the man (or woman, in this PC world we live in) who beats up/ threatens their spouse. That’s kinda clear cut, except when the spouse is lying. Believe me, it happens a lot. So should that person lose their firearm? Some on the left believe this doesn’t happen, but it does. Who decides when they get it back? Maybe if they are acquitted, that sounds good. But wait, what happens if the spouse decides to retract her allegation? If she / he says they lied, then the person should get their firearms back, right? What if she / he is lying about lying? This also happens, a LOT.

What about mental health? Oh wait, they are already excluded. Yeah, you say, but that’s not working. Okay, I see your point. Let’s create a database so we can flag them. Hold on, can’t do that, federal privacy laws. Wait, you mean that the same federal government that calls for more in-depth background checks won’t allow mental health to be included? Yep.

Let’s take those wild and wacky Texans for example. You know that radical right state that seems to love everything bigger and better. Over one million folks a year buy a gun in Texas and get the required background check. The checks look at a person’s criminal history, but not always their mental health record. You see, in Texas, court ordered commitments or guardianships must be reported, but, according to both Texas and federal law, information about a person’s emergency mental health detentions / warrants, protective custody orders, or drug / alcohol rehab services cannot be made public for a background check.

Well that sucks.

But realistically, how much impact would that make?

Well, if you were the victims of Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Aaron Alexis, Nidal Hassan, Dylann Roof, or Robert Dear, a lot. You see, none of them should have had weapons, which is of little consolation to the 72 dead and 113 injured.  

So what new common sense law would have prevented it? Sadly, none.

You see, medical records are kept private to encourage folks to get help, which is a great idea, except when they don’t. Unfortunately, the mental health community believes that any new laws could do more harm than good and they tend to vociferously object to the inclusion of those records. In a way it makes sense. Most people will suffer from a mental ‘issue’ in their lifetime, whether it is the death of a loved one, marital problems, or financial issues. The majority of people sort it out and move on, a small minority don’t. The mental health community will tell you that we should be very wary of stigmatizing the many, in an attempt to stop the few.

Kind of odd that you always hear the NRA being blasted for saying something similar, yet no one objects when it comes from the mental health community. I guess they have a better lobbing group.

Well, it doesn’t seem that we are any closer to coming up with a better system, so let’s move on to what many believe to be the real problem: The Gun Show Loophole.

I so want to make this a drinking game, but I’m afraid that I’d be too boxed, in too short a period of time, to actually be able to breathe on my own. Here is the truth: there is no gun show loophole. Despite what politicians and the media claim, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. It doesn’t matter whether a dealer sells from a storefront, a room in his house or a table at a gun show, the rules are the same. The dealer must get authorization from the FBI for the sale. The truth is that firearms are the most regulated consumer product in the United States, the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

So what’s the issue? Well, it stems from private sales. In some states, individuals do not have to run a check. You might think that is odd, but let’s just say my wife falls in love with my old .38 S&W revolver. I am pretty sure of her criminal history, as well as her mental health background, and she has the proper license to possess it, so do I really need to do a background check before I give it to her?  

Now many believe that this loophole is a really big thing and they cite some impressive numbers like “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.”

Holy crap, call out the National Guard!!

Whoa, hold on, wait a moment, I’ve been to a lot of gun shows. This is one of those trick questions, or rather a trick statement (pay attention, you’ll see this again).

You see the number might be correct, but it’s the terminology that is the problem. They use the generic term ‘vendor’ to promote their claim. Unfortunately, for those of you, like me, who have gone to gun shows, it is more often than not that you have to wade through table after table of ‘vendors’ selling:  Candles, Cookies, Jerky, Books, Knives, Lights, Coins, Stamps, Surplus Military Gear, and an assortment of other crap that makes you wonder why they just don’t call it a flea market. In fact, an NIJ study once concluded that gun shows were such a ‘minor source of criminal gun acquisition’ that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

Damn, this isn’t working out well. Let’s move onto something we can all agree on, denying folks on the terror ‘no fly’ list.

Last night the president asked congress to pass legislation that would strip anyone who was on the terrorism ‘no fly’ list of the ability to purchase a firearm in the United States. Senator Dianne Feinstein has also proposed a bill that would prohibit anyone, whose name appears on the list, from buying a firearm. A lot of folks are claiming that makes sense, after all, no one wants a terrorist to be able to buy a gun.  I mean how controversial could this be? If they have been placed on the ‘no fly’ list, surely they pose a significant threat and should be banned from owning a weapon. Right?  

I see you nodding your head in agreement. You have much to learn my little padawan.

First, we need to establish some basic information about the ‘no fly’ list, which is a component of the FBI’s terror watch list. The list, which came about after the 9/11 attacks, was founded on good intentions, but we know all about the road that is paved with those. The truth is that the ‘no-fly’ list is an unmitigated disaster. While there are many on the list that are connected to terrorism, nearly half of the names belong to people who don’t.

Wait, how is this possible you’re asking?

Well, like I said before, it started out with the best of intentions, but government seems to always find a way to screw things up, even when they aren’t trying. In the case of the ‘no fly’ list, some would believe they are trying.  

Take for example Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Mr. Hayes was added to the list simply because he booked a one-way trip to Istanbul for a cruise, and then returned to the U.S., a few weeks later, via Athens. Hardly grounds for someone to lose their right to own a firearm, but Mr. Hayes is a contributor on Fox so maybe…. No, perish the thought. How about priests, nuns, students and peace activists? Heck, in 2003 the New York Times railed against the Bush administration regarding the list, stating that some had been on the list simply for their liberal views. When President Bush left office the list contained nearly 50,000 names. Under the Obama administration this mangled, bureaucratic mess contains over 700,000. Not hearing much out of the NYT now however.

The truth is that all it takes is for the government to declare it has reasonable suspicion that someone could be a terrorist. In fact, it doesn’t even take the government. An anonymous source can make the claim.

The problem is that the list contains names, not identities, and has led to any number of misidentifications and confusion. As a result, innocent people, with no connection to anything remotely terror related, have found themselves smack dab in the middle of a nightmare. To make matters worse, there is no easy way to have one’s name removed from what amounts to a secret blacklist. I am certain that there are a number of folks who don’t even know they are on the list. Hell, former Senator, Ted Kennedy, and Congressman John Lewis were on the list. I won’t even begin to go into the details of the 18 month old child who was removed from a flight because she was on the list.

Under the Feinstein bill, those on the list would have their 2nd Amendment rights denied. Now there are some that say that our 2^nd Amendment right is not absolute, and they are correct. Under the current law felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers are prohibited from purchasing firearms. The sticking point is that those folks listed above are entitled to due process, before that right is taken away, a luxury not afford to those on the ‘no fly’ list. All that would be necessary is to have your name pop up on a list, because someone in the government said, without any probable cause, that it should be there.

Oh, and remember what I said before about the ‘no fly’ list being a component of the FBI’s terror watch list? Well then this should make your head spin. It’s been revealed that, in the course of an Inspector General investigation, the names of seventy plus members of the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Safety Administration, appear on the terror watch list. Do they have actual ties to terror or are they simply there by accident? I don’t know, but apparently neither does the TSA. If you couple this information along with the fact that OIG agents were able to get weapons past screening points in 95% of their exercises and it doesn’t exactly instill confidence in me to fly anytime soon.

I don’t know about you, but I thought this was going to be easier. I think I need a drink.

Let’s move on to banning large capacity magazines. Surely that’s something that shouldn’t be too controversial, right? Obviously, you’ve never loaded a magazine before. This matter sort of falls under the whole ‘spooky’ thing. Think about this for a moment. I am inclined to go on a shooting rampage, but the law says I can’t have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds (7 rounds in New York). Damn, well there goes that rampage, said no one ever. Did you miss the part where I said 'I was inclined to go on a shooting rampage'? Do you really think that if I were limited to a 10 round magazine that I would somehow be less of a threat?

This is kind of a two-fer, and includes banning fully automatic weapons. First let us consider the weapon. The overwhelming majority, and I mean like 99.+% majority, involve semi-automatic weapons, not full auto. Why you ask? Well, because the overwhelming majority of folks that have the money to purchase full auto are really not the type that go out and commit crimes. So, let’s deal with the semi-automatic. It doesn’t matter whether you have ten rounds in the magazine, or thirty, or one hundred, you still have to pull the trigger to fire each round.  I once heard a reporter say that a particular ‘assault weapon’ could fire a staggering 800 rounds per minute. Sounds completely diabolical, where do I get one?

Again, this is the trick statement. While a particular weapon might be able to fire 800 rounds per minute, does the gun we are talking about have this ability? In the case of that reporter, the answer was no, it did not. Well, why not? Because the gun being talked about was the spooky semi-automatic gun. The 800 number is the cyclic rate, which is the technical rate of fire. Under mechanical conditions, at full auto, it can, but in semi-auto it’s not even remotely close. You would have to fire more than 13 rounds per second, without stopping, to achieve this number. I don’t know about you, but I have done more than my fair share of shooting and my trigger finger gets sore long before I ever hit this mythical number, and nowhere near in a one minute interval. You would also need twenty-six, 30 round, magazines to achieve this. Soldiers in Afghanistan don’t even carry that much ammo.

While we are on the topic of full-auto weapons I should let you know that, while they are capable of firing that way, the VAST majority of people who shoot, or have shot them, will tell you that almost no one does. Why? Well, if you are paying for your own ammo, the bill racks up pretty quickly. Add that to the fact that full-auto ain’t worth shit if you are trying to hit an actual target, hence the motto ‘spray and pray’. So realistically, just because it can, doesn’t mean you will. In my experience, the 3 round burst is the better choice.

So why shouldn’t we ban large capacity magazines? I guess the real question is why should we?

To be fair, this is a personal thing. I don’t like to reload; frankly it’s a pain in the ass, or at least a pointer finger. In the grand scheme of things, if I am so inclined to commit a heinous act, it won’t matter to me. I can reload from three 10 round magazines almost as quickly as I can fire from one 30 round. The average shooter will probably be a bit slower, but at that point it’s almost academic.

So where does that leave us? Well, no closer to a resolution, but I at least hope you have seen things in a different light.

Oh wait, I almost forgot my add-on, the old no one is trying to confiscate your guns story.

You know, there was a time when that wasn’t true. In fact it was actually only a couple of days ago. The New York Times said as much in their editorial. They are not the first and they certainly won’t be the last. To be clear, the word is not used, that would be bad optics. Gun confiscations rarely go over well, just ask those who witnessed it in my previous post. So they use passive words like surrendering for the good of all, or they issue notices that your weapons are now illegal and you need to turn them in. It’s the ‘rose by any other name’ syndrome.

But is the idea of gun confiscation really the manifestation of some right-wing nut job seeing government conspiracies behind every corner? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

I am reminded of the old adage: Once is a mistake. Twice is a pattern. Three times is a habit.

In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act, authorizing federal troops to begin confiscating weapons in preparation for military re-conquest of the South.

In 1890, at the height of the American Indian relocation effort, U.S. Troops, confiscated the weapons from the Sioux at Wounded Knee. After they were disarmed, the troops shot and killed nearly 300 of them.

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt used the attack at Pearl Harbor to justify the mass confiscation of guns, and other property, from people deemed ‘enemy aliens’ all over the United States.  After the confiscation, the disarmed individuals were rounded up and placed in concentration camps.

Most recently, in 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans launched a wholesale, door-to-door, gun confiscation under the declaration of martial law. Members of the New Orleans Police Department, as well as the National Guard, went door to door securing these weapons. Over 1,000 firearms were seized, and untold numbers of people, houses, and vehicles were aggressively searched in the process.  Residents, who had already suffered the hardships of the hurricane, were left vulnerable and defenseless by the government that had thus far shown they were unable to protect them.

Following the disaster, the government promised that gun confiscation would never happen again.  But the reality is that such guarantees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on during a crisis situation.  As the above shows, the guaranteed rights in the constitution have certainly not been upheld in the past, so why should one more promise prevent future gun confiscation?

Gun confiscation is an ugly term and is proving to be damning to those seeking higher office. Many gun owners are concerned, and rightfully so. There are many who feel strongly about removing firearms and make no bones about it, you only have to turn on the TV and see a whole host of pundits and politicians championing this. But even if they stop talking about confiscation, does that mean the threat is really gone? No.

Here is what I know.

Microstamping legislation was passed in California AB 1471 and signed into law on October 14, 2007. D.C. is the only other place to adopt similar legislation and is set to enforce it next year. Similar legislation is also under consideration in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

Microstamping is a ballistics identification technology whereby microscopic markings are engraved onto the tip of the firing pin and onto the breech face of a firearm with a laser. When the gun is fired, these etchings are transferred to the primer by the firing pin and to the cartridge case head by the breech face, using the pressure created when a round is fired. At face value, most people would say that’s a great idea. Sadly, they would also be wrong. There are a number of variables which make this issue problematic from a law enforcement standpoint: a) Discarded brass, such as that from a firing range, could be misused, providing false evidence and increasing the workload for investigators. b) Firing a large number of rounds will eventually wear down the microstamp. c) Microstamping is relatively new, with a single source provider, and has not been subjected to sufficient testing.

The reality is that this was an end run. Rather than ban guns outright, the state of California created a de facto ban, where they simply eliminated new gun sales.  Gun manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Ruger have already stopped selling to California.

San Bernardino shows that, despite it being a direct terrorist threat, the narrative was immediately turned toward gun control. The fact that California has some of the nations’ most stringent ‘common sense’ gun laws on the books meant nothing to the two criminals who were so inclined to break the law. Gun laws also don’t mean anything to those suffering from mental illness.

For decades we have had what amounts to a revolving door justice system that has taught felons, old and young, that laws will not be enforced. It’s the same reason why a few weeks back, in New York City, Junior Regis, a member of the Brooklyn’s Most Wanted gang, with a lengthy rap sheet including robbery, was nabbed for the 2nd time in just ten days for gun possession. After the 2nd arrest, prosecutors recommended that Regis be held without bail or be given a $500,000.00 bail. Much to their surprise, the judge released Regis on $1,000.00 which he promptly posted.

To many this might be a bit of a shock, but to those of us in law enforcement, who have seen this same scenario play out time and again; it is nothing more than business as usual. Despite the incredible amount of gun laws, already on the books, the criminal justice system seemingly refuses to incarcerate offenders for them. Yet, we, the law abiding gun owners, are constantly being told, by this administration, that what we simply need to fix our gun problem is more gun laws.

In the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

I’ve seen the light !!! Common Sense Gun Control !!!

Guns are pure evil and no civilized person should ever be in the vicinity of them.

Therefore, effective immediately, I will be rescinding my memberships to such organizations as the NRA, ISRA and other like-minded groups.  All the money I have paid in membership dues will now go to the UN, ACLU, and other groups who promote diversity and peace. I will also be turning in my weapons at the next law enforcement sponsored gun surrender program. Don’t ask me to buy them, because I could not bear to have you embrace these disgusting weapons of war.

I have also decided to change party affiliations, since my prior party is nothing but grotesque war mongers. Poverty, inequality, and social justice can only be achieved through the collective good and government is the strongest vehicle to achieve this. Because of this I am now going to sue the City of New York and the NYPD for forcing me to be a part of their brutal regime and crackdown of minor crimes designed to incarcerate the poor and less fortunate.  I will be asking for $25 million dollars for emotional harm and will be using the proceeds to establish ‘safe zones’ where people can go to protect themselves from hurtful words. Any money that remains will be used to buy ‘no gun zone’ placards to be affixed to doors.

Sadly, this whole enlightenment thing has also caused me to rethink my religious beliefs. I have therefore decided to embrace my humanism. For too long I have undervalued myself and my contributions to society.

I have also decided to unleash myself from the destructive gender assignment that was forced upon me, without my consent, by an oppressive, dictatorial society which seeks to buttonhole me into their world view. I am now F_(`296Mx~%, a sentient, asexual being that refuses to conform to so called societal norms. I also am a being of the world, and as such believe that fascist laws, which are forced upon us, have no hold over me. 

Bless Myself,……… this is so liberating that I am teetering on the edge of a narcissistic euphoria!!

For any of you who already feel this way, I have only one thing to say: Get off social media and grow the fuck up.

For those of you who know me better, and are laughing your asses off right now, I salute you.

To be honest with you, I’m tired. I’m tired of the whining, the bullshit, and the sight of allegedly adult human beings demanding a ‘safe zone’ so that their feelings don’t get hurt. What the hell has happened to this country? Everything, and I mean everything, is someone (or something) else’s fault.

• You're 35 and work at Burger King & need a $15 minimum wage - You're 35, got a $15 wage & demand your hours get reduced so you can stay on public assistance.
• Grew up poor, government did not provide enough - Got in trouble with the law, government is too repressive.
• Argue that all guns should be banned because of gun deaths around roughly 10k (+/-) per year – Do not call for ban of all cars that have an annual DUI cause of death of around roughly 10k (+/-) per year
• Lament that you cannot find work after college because of corporate greed – Obtained a degree in Feminist Studies.
• Believe that the police are reprehensible racist murderers  - Call for the murder of all police officers using reprehensible racial slurs.
• Say that all Muslims should not be blamed for the actions of a handful of bad ones – Blame all gun owners for the actions of a handful of bad ones.
• Claim George Bush caused ISIS, when their numbers were less than 1k in 2009 – Don’t blame current admin when the numbers swell to 20-30k by 2015.
• Want Canadian / European style national health care – Ignore the fact that the scandal plagued VA, where veterans routinely die waiting for care, is actually a model for national healthcare.
• Believe all college tuition should be free, paid for by the government  – Ignore the fact that the ‘greedy’ universities actually set tuition rates.
• Engage in hunger strikes to protest alleged ‘privileged’ status of some – Ignore the fact that they come from privileged homes themselves.
• Blame the financial collapse on Bush – Ignore that safeguards in the housing industry were removed by previous administration to allow, otherwise ineligible, people to purchase homes they couldn't afford.
• Blame the GOP majority for obstructing the president’s agenda – Blame the GOP minority for obstructing the president’s agenda.
• Believe the United Nations can solve global problems – Ignore that the United Nations have never solved a global problem.
• Claim that religion is for the weak minded – Deride those who disagree with immigration policies as being un-Christian.
• Complain that union workers don’t make enough money – Ignore the fact that many union heads make more than the Vice President of the United States.
• Claim that we are a racist / misogynistic society – Ignore the racism / misogyny that occur in other countries around the world.
• Decry extremist Christians for talking about their faith – Ignore that extremist Muslims are killing people for not converting to theirs.
• Claim that there is a war on woman who are not paid on par with their male counterparts – Ignore that the women in the White House are not paid on par with their male counterparts.
• Demand more ‘common sense’ gun laws – Ignore that the places with the most restrictive gun laws in the US have the highest (illegal) gun crimes.
• Ignore when terrorist groups lob rockets into Israel – Scream about unnecessary use of force when Israel defends itself

Are you starting to see the rampant hypocrisy here?

One of the things which makes me laugh the hardest is when the left points to the ‘war on drugs’ and the fact that it did very little to curb drug crimes. Oh, okay, and I guess you have solved that little problem and believe that the ‘war on guns’ will do better?

Anytime someone is killed it is a tragedy, but to claim that removing all guns will cure the problem is pure and simple Utopian bullshit. I’m not saying there are not issues in this country, but the sad fact is that they are generational in their origination.

When I grew up, we were taught to respect the police and teachers. In fact, being disrespectful carried an exacting punishment, where you had your ass whooped by them and again when you got home. Now, society blames the police for every encounter; ignoring the fact that the alleged ‘victim’ was engaged in criminal behavior. We've taught our children to have contempt and disrespect for everyone in authority. 

Here is a newsflash: If you assault, and attempt to disarm, a police officer you are NOT a victim of anything. You are a criminal. Likewise, if you commit a crime with a gun, YOU, not the gun, are the criminal.

Recently I had a discussion with a gentleman that cited Japan as the model for what a ‘no gun society’ can look like. Because of their restrictive laws, they have almost no gun murders. Now you would think that there would be zero, but the truth is that you can never get rid of all the guns.

What this individual failed to realize is that, unlike the United States, Japan has a very different societal make-up. If it were simply a matter of comparing the low gun crime rate in Japan to the high gun crime rate in the US, one would be led to believe that guns were the problem. However, if you compare non-gun related crime, you come up with a similar story. So, if it is not the tool that is the issue, what is it?

Japan has a much different society then we do and there is a much closer relationship with law enforcement authorities. While the clearance rate for homicide is generally in the same ballpark (90% + for Japan and 70%+ for the US), the real difference is seen in the clearance rate for robbery. Japan clears around 80%+ of their robberies, while the US only clears around 20%. So why are those numbers so stark?

Again we go back to the culture. The conformist society of Japan does a lot to keep people out of crime in the first place. Family honor, and respect toward authority, are attributes that are instilled at a very early age.

Another factor is the criminal justice system in Japan.

Unlike the United States, which does a lot to protect individual rights, Japan has no such encumbrances. Japanese policeman can, and do, stop ‘suspicious’ people and make them show what they are carrying. In effect, the police can search basically anyone, at any time, and rarely will any evidence discovered be deemed inadmissible.

The Japanese criminal justice system puts more emphasis on the suspect than almost any other industrial / democratic country. While the United States enjoys Miranda warnings, Japan has no such barrier. Bail is routinely denied if it will interfere with interrogations and suspects can be held for 3 days, and 10 day extensions added if needed, for the purpose of obtaining a confession. In reality, a suspect can be held almost indefinitely until they confess and most defense attorneys are reluctant to protest for fear of offending the prosecutor. This results in a 90%+ confession rate. After the confession is obtained it gets even better. For those who go to trial, there is no jury and the conviction / incarceration rate for violent crime is nearly 100%.

Contrast this with the United States, where for decades we have seen an almost revolving door justice system. I can personal attest to numerous times where defendants were released on their own recognizance and I still had not finished the paperwork process. For decades you slapped the wrist's of offenders and now you are shocked when they, and now their children, have no respect for the law.

I wonder how many of the ‘enlightened’ folks walking around the halls of academia would be willing to give up their civil rights in order to obtain the low gun homicide rates of Japan? Judging from the ‘social’ protests I see on TV, not many. 

Another case of selective cherry-picking.

One other fact which the left chooses to ignore is that Japan still engages in blatant racism toward non-Japanese, something that would make their collective heads explode here.

Another problem for the gun grabbing crowd is that pesky little country called Switzerland.

Switzerland has an estimated population of about 8 million people and an estimated 2-4 million guns. Now, if guns were truly the issue, you would think that the Swiss would have a problem. Yet they have less than half of 1% (per 100k) of gun homicides. Like Japan, the Swiss have a societal structure of personal responsibility and respect, something greatly lacking in today's urban American environment.

The fact is that the first prohibitive gun laws were designed not to protect, but to disarm. Native Americans, free blacks and Chinese were all victims of this.

Consider for a moment that this month marks the 125th Anniversary of the Wounded Knee Massacre. On December 29th, agents of the government, along with the U.S. 7th Calvary, were sent to Wounded Knee, in South Dakota, to disarm the Sioux Indian’s for their own protection. It was the first federally backed gun confiscation program in U.S. History. After the majority of the Sioux were disarmed, the Calvary began shooting and managed to wipe out the entire camp. Of the 297 victims, 200 were women and children. 

We must wake up and accept the fact that evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Immediately after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, which left 14 dead and 21 wounded, the president, rather than condemn the terrorists, used the incident as a springboard to call for increased gun control. Maybe someone can correct me, but it really doesn't seem as if he has a grasp on this whole ISIS / Radical Islamic Terror thing. In this most recent attack, it's obvious that someone must have forgotten to tell him that all the gun control measures that he is calling for were already in place in California and had no impact on the attack. For whatever reason he, and those calling for stricter gun laws, cannot comprehend the fact that those intent on committing acts of terror, or criminal acts period, are not inclined to obey the law.

We cannot overlook the fact that throughout world history evil people have committed evil acts. Time and again we are shown examples of governments removing weapons from their citizens, for their own good, only to find that it was actually the government that was the real danger to them. You see, the truth is, that tyrannical governments are not anti-gun; in fact they enjoy them very much, as long as they are the only ones who have them.

• In 1911 Turkey disarmed its citizens. Between 1915 – 1917 they murdered over one million Armenians.
• In 1929 Russia disarmed its citizens. Between 1929 – 1953 they murdered approximately 20 million anti-communists.
• In 1935 China disarmed its citizens. Between 1948 – 1952 they murdered approximately 20  million anti-communists / reformers.
• In 1938 Germany disarmed its citizens. Between 1939 – 1945 they murdered approximately 16 million Jews, Gypsies and anti-Nazis.
• In 1956 Cambodia disarmed its citizens. Between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million ‘educated’ people.
• In 1964 Guatemala disarmed its citizens. Between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
• In 1970 Uganda disarmed its citizens. Between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians / political rivals.

In the infinite wisdom of the founding fathers, the 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. The right to own guns, to protect your personal freedom, was never written to protect the right to go deer or bear hunting, nor was it designed to protect weapons used for this purpose, but the very weapons that are now being vilified.

Take a look at the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Many people argue that since we have a military (militia) that we no longer need the 2^nd Amendment. However, the exact opposite is true about the reason for the 2nd Amendment. Understanding that a state needs a military, and understanding that the military of the state (England) was used against colonials, the founding fathers created the amendment to protect the individual rights of the citizenry to maintain their weapons, thereby ensuring that the government would never be able to do to them what the King of England had done.

Don’t believe me? Read their own quotes:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” – Patrick Henry

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” Noah Webster

“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.” John Adams

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

Not once did I read anything about hunting or target shooting.

As much as we believe that we can legislate morality, we simply cannot. We also cannot rid the world of evil through the use of safe zones. Good people will tend to abide by the law while the criminal element will always find a way around it.

In the Bible, one of the first stories is that of Cain, who killed his brother Abel over jealousy. Evil does not exist within any tool, but rather resides in the heart of the wielder. 

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.