Benghazi: Lies, Misdirection, Silence and the 2016 Presidential Race

I write books. They are mostly mystery / thrillers with a healthy dose of political intrigue thrown in for good measure. I get a lot of enjoyment in spinning a tangled web of lies and deceit, but lately it seems that my fiction is taking a back seat to real life.

In the latest installment of: ‘What did I do to piss you off this time?’ I think it is time we re-visit the whole ‘Benghazi Thing.’ I say this, because there are some people who still just don’t get it.

I read a post on Benghazi that went something like this: “I would love a debate about policy. Or we could say just vote democratic because of the thirty embassy attacks when Bush was president and the hundreds that died.”

<Squinting> Huh? Are You F’ing serious?

You see, this is the bullshit they do. They, as in the poorly uninformed, have learned it from the politicians and pundits. Don’t argue the actual point, just change the narrative. As if the attack on Benghazi was just another terror attack, or the lives lost were somehow the same as the ones killed

in other attacks.

Here is a newsflash: The Benghazi attack was a completely different animal because, when the attack occurred, the government failed them and then lied to us.

I read a CNN article the other day which said: “House Republicans capped a partisan, two-year investigation of the Benghazi terror attacks Tuesday with a report that faults the Obama administration for security lapses that led to the deaths of four Americans, but contains no revelations likely to further damage Hillary Clinton.”

Let that sink in for a moment.

No revelations likely to further damage Hillary Clinton?

As opposed to all the other stuff that has damaged her, but yet we somehow still want to believe she is capable of being President.

Fine, whatever, here’s another glass of Kool-Aid, drink up.

And why exactly was this ever partisan to begin with?

Investigations, especially ones dealing with a terror attack in which an Ambassador and CIA contractors are killed, should never be partisan, they should always be a search for the truth. What is sad to me is that a large group of people are making partisan political comments without knowing any of the facts. The majority of Americans have no clue about what happened at Benghazi, either before, during or after the attack. They have relied on carefully crafted talking points instead of actually researching it for themselves. I’d venture to say that almost no one has actually read the 800+ page report.

In a way, it’s kind of like that whole Affordable Care Act debacle.

In case you’d like to take a walk down memory lane, here’s a piece I wrote right after the attack when they were pushing the video and spontaneous demonstration theory. You remember that lie, don’t you? Consider that the first of many to come.

As I mentioned before, most American’s have no clue as to what they are talking about. They couldn’t even begin to tell you how long Libya has been an independent state; let alone what the state of the country was leading up to the attack. Fortunately for you, I have written a Libya / Benghazi primer course for you, to bring you up to speed.

Bear in mind that these posts tend to be a bit long, but that’s the key. They are not your cliché riddled talking points.

You know, I’ve lost count of the number of times I have heard people say: “It wouldn’t have mattered if they sent troops; they wouldn’t have gotten there in time.”

Really? And exactly how did you, or they, know just how long the attack was going to last for?

I guess using that analogy, the next time you’re the victim of a violent crime, don’t bother calling the police because chances are they won’t get there in time either.

13 Hours: Paramount Pictures

Making a cavalier statement like that is fine, in hindsight retrospection, but I can tell you that in the middle of an attack no one knew how long it was going to last…… 13 HOURS is a long time to wait for help. If you feel the need to make a flippant comment on this topic, I highly recommend watching the movie, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, or read the book, 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi,  by Mitchell Zuckoff, before you do.

The fact is that when word of the attacks reached the Embassy and the CIA Station in Tripoli, in less than an hour, they managed to assemble a response team and acquire an aircraft for transport. The team, dubbed Team Tripoli, consisted of four Tripoli Station GRS members, one of whom was Glen Doherty, two Defense Department special operators, and a CIA linguist. An hour after they got to the airport in Tripoli they were in Benghazi.

So much for not being able to get there in time.

Now, Hillary Clinton, the woman at the heart of the Benghazi attack, who is looking to be our next president, is telling the world that there is nothing more to see here and that we simply need to move on.

Really? Must be nice to be able to lie to the American people, including the families of those four dead Americas and then tell them to move on.

 Here is what we know:

The Ambassador, as well as the folks doing protection, requested additional manpower and resources which were routinely met with no response or were refused by senior officials in Washington.  I’m not talking 1-2 requests, but nearly 600 security requests / concerns from January through September 2012. While some were acted on, the majority, including the requests for additional manpower, were not. In fact, manpower was reduced leading up to the attack. Clearly there were issues going on!!

Say what you will, but when an Ambassador, the President’s personal representative to a foreign nation, requests additional security, that cannot be overlooked, nor should it be dismissed by underlings sitting in a cushy office in D.C.  When everything is said and done, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, dropped the ball. It was her agency and even the State Department ARB said security was ‘grossly inadequate.’  If you don’t believe that she was responsible, then you need to stop blaming Bush for everything because apparently the ‘buck’ really doesn’t stop anywhere in Washington.

The fact is that the State Department assessment of Benghazi in 2011 and 2012 noted rising crime and a high-risk of militia violence left by the toppling of Gaddafi. The precarious security situation was exacerbated by inadequate security at the Benghazi facility, which was plagued by equipment failures, a lack of manpower and relied too much on unreliable local militia for protection.  Ironically, one of those Washington State Department bureaucrats, Charlene Lamb, had the audacity to say: “It is very unfortunate and sad at this point that Ambassador Stevens was a victim, but that is where ultimate responsibility lies."

Wow, the State Department denied additional security, but it’s really the fault of that poor schmuck who died.  Oh, it should be noted that, while denying the requests for security, the State Department, through their spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, emailed Stevens to ask how to describe the security incidents in 2012

Really, Vickie?

I would like to imagine that Steven’s reply was something like: “They just attempted to assassinate the British Ambassador with an RPG. I guess you could say all’s well. Wish you were here, darling.”

One of the things that has always troubled me about this attack was our response or lack thereof.  On the night of the attack did the President issue Cross Border Authority? If you don’t know what CBA is, then click the link. The Congressional report now presents a distinct dilemma that no one seems to be considering or even talking about. 

According to the report, the military did not carry out then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's order to deploy U.S. forces to help rescue Americans under fire in Benghazi. If this is correct, and the President gave CBA, then we have an act of gross dereliction of duty on the part of senior members of the military. Or, as is most likely the case, we are not being told the full story, yet again.

I’m sorry, but I simply do not believe anything that comes out of the mouths of those inhabiting that cesspool known as Washington, D.C. As someone who has served under a chain of command, I know that there are consequences to failing to take action as directed by a superior, especially when four Americans die in a terror attack.

Consider the following and ask if you think this is plausible:

The President directs the Secretary of Defense to take action.

The Secretary of Defense notifies the Pentagon which in turns notifies the Commanding General of AFRICOM, General Carter Ham. 

By all accounts, General Ham immediately began directing / assembling units for deployment, a deployment that never occurred.

Shortly after the dust settled, General Ham announced he was retiring, for personal reasons, after only serving ½ of his scheduled rotation as head of AFRICOM and only a few years shy of mandatory retirement.  When announcing Ham's replacement, his X.O. at AFRICOM, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta praised Ham's service. A report from the department said leaders remain "fully confident" in Ham's performance. Even Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said that Ham “has the full confidence of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Little attributed the change to Ham's "decision to retire," which he described as "an entirely personal decision."

Now, Congressman Trey Gowdy, who led the Congressional investigation into the attacks, states that Carter Ham acknowledged that he altered President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's order to deploy to Benghazi to rescue American personnel, and redirected the deployment to Tripoli, Libya instead.

Wait, how does a commanding general, who acted in contradiction to the direction of the President and Secretary of Defense, still enjoy 'the full confidence of the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?'

I’m sorry, but I call bullshit. That would fall under Article 92 UCMJ: Failure to Obey Order or Regulation and is a Courts Martial offense.

In October 2012, General Ham told Rep. Jason Chaffetz that after the 9-11 Benghazi terror attack he was never given the order to secure the consulate in Benghazi.

Wait, he was NEVER given the order? Yet we are also being told that he was ordered, but that he  redirected the troops, from where they were being requested, to a city over 400 miles away.

Add that to the fact that Leon Panetta testified that: “The President made clear that we ought to use all of the resources at our disposal to try to make sure we did everything possible to try to save lives there.” He further testified that within an hour of his return to the Pentagon, he issued an order to deploy the identified assets. “My orders were to deploy those forces, period.…It was very clear: They are to deploy.” Yet it took nearly two more hours before the Secretary’s orders were relayed to those forces and then several more hours before any of those forces moved.

But how does this even make sense, considering the statement in October 2012 by Panetta where he said: "The basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

So now the Secretary of Defense says they decided not to take action.

Not sure what he meant by not knowing what was going on, as I think it was pretty clear from the drone flying above, the calls from the Benghazi facility, and the reports at the CIA Annex as to what was going on.

If all of this seems confusing and convoluted to you, imagine how the folks on the ground felt.

Kris ‘Tanto’ Paronto, one of the CIA contractors who went to the aid of the Benghazi facility, said “I asked for the Spectre and ISR [an armed Predator drone]. At midnight, they told us they were still working on getting us that Spectre gunship. Not that it was not available, but that they were still working on it.”

According to Paronto there were two AC-130H Spectre gunships on call that night, both within range of Benghazi. One of them was a six-hour flight away, co-located with a U.S. special operations team in Djibouti, and the other was at Naval Air Station Sigonella, in Sicily. In addition, the European Command (EUCOM), Commander’s In-Extremis Force, was on a counter-terrorism training mission in Croatia. A three-hour flight from Benghazi.

Paronto says that he knew people in that unit and when he spoke with them, after he and his security team got back to the CIA Annex from the diplomatic compound, he was told that “they were loading their gear into their aircraft and ready to go.” Later, they informed him that they had been shut down sometime after midnight.

All evidence now points to a specific stand-down order issued by Secretary Clinton, since the Libyan facilities came under her direct authority. Without a specific request for assistance from the State Department, the Pentagon was powerless to act.

Why do I say this?

Because, in 2015, the State Department released an email that was sent at 7:09 p.m. EST (1:09 a.m. Benghazi time) from Jeremy Bash, an aide to the Secretary of Defense, directly to Hillary Clinton’s office, informing them of the various military assets that were “spinning up” to deploy to Benghazi. Among those assets were Special Forces operation specialists (C-1/10), the In-Extremis Force Paronto talked about, stationed in Croatia, along with two U.S. Marine Corps Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons based in Rota, Spain, the Spectre gunships, armed Predator drones, and possibly elements of Marine Expeditionary Units in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

We know this is accurate because, in preparation for deploying the C-1/10 directly to Benghazi from Croatia, General Ham, issued orders transferring authority for C-1/10 to him from European Command (EUCOM). General Ham was actively beginning to stage units to rescue those in Benghazi.

The email further states, and this is VERY important: “Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to secure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us.”

To date, the State Department has not released any reply from Mrs. Clinton’s office to Bash’s email request. Why?

What we do know is that the top U.S. diplomat in Tripoli at the time, Gregory Hicks, testified that the State Department NEVER requested country clearance from Libya for any U.S. forces that night.

And whatever happened to the C-1/10 in Croatia?

When orders finally went out from Panetta’s office, an hour later, they included a re-transfer of C-1/10 from AFRICOM back to EUCOM, along with orders for the unit to deploy to Sigonella, Italy, the NEXT DAY, and hold in place. 

C-1/10, the Special Forces team that is actually trained to conduct hostage rescue and high-profile missions was activated to respond and then told to stand down.

Have you read that and let that really sink in?  Are you getting these flip-flops?

Are you seeing that there was never going to be a rescue?

So what exactly did the President authorize that night? Again I ask: was Cross Border Authority ever issued? But, like the former Secretary of State famously said: “What difference does it make?”

The presumptive democratic nominee,  along with the majority of democrats in Congress, are telling you to move along; that there is nothing to see. I don’t know about you, but the only thing I’m not seeing here are real answers, except from those who were on the ground in Benghazi, and those answers paint a sordid picture of lies, treachery, treason and deceit. Not exactly the qualifications I find particularly pleasing in a Presidential candidate.

We, as American’s, now have the government that we allowed. Our leaders no longer respect us nor do they believe they have to answer to us. That is sad and it is the primary reason we are in the state of division that we are. We have to wake up and take back our country one election at a time. We can have civil discourse and we might not always agree, but the time has come for us to educate ourselves and not rely on what we are being told.

The truth is that, from the very beginning, they lied to us about what happened in Benghazi. Now the question is how many more lies were told. To determine that it is up to us to research the facts and vote accordingly.

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.

Irony, Stat's, & Gun Control - Why the Anti-Gun Folks Just Don't Get It.

The appreciation of sarcasm is being lost at an alarming rate these days. There used to be a time when people understood you were being sarcastic, now you have to actually explain things to them or use one of those stupid symbols……  Being a NY’er, I despise this. If you've read any of my books, you'll know that my characters of quite fond of it as well.

The same hold true for irony. Some folks just don't seem to appreciate just how ironic they really are.

If you have turned on a TV, read a paper, logged onto Facebook or Twitter lately, you would see irony, in all its glory and pageantry, on full display, but at the same time being missed out on by so many who just don’t get it.

Examples are things like:

• Black lives matter……. Because, you know, all the other lives don’t.
• Be a champion of the climate change agenda, but fly across the ocean in your private G4, to accept an award, then immediately fly back to party in Caan.
• Christianity, which follows the tenets of Jesus who says to love one another, is bad. While Islam, which advocates killing in the name of Allah, is good….. You know; the whole religion of peace thing.
• No one under an FBI investigation should ever be able to purchase a gun, but you can still run for President if you’re under an FBI investigation.

I don’t know who originally coined the phrase ‘Word’s Matter’, but they do. Just like our President admonished us in a campaign speech back in 2008: “Don't tell me words don't matter. ‘I have a dream.’  Just words?”

IRONICALLY, he was accused of plagiarizing that, from a speech Deval Patrick made in 2006, by none other than Hillary Clinton. Oh well, like they say, politics make for strange bedfellows.

The problem I have with all of this is that we have stopped reading words, in the form of actual research, and have begun to accept talking points and snippets as actual truth. They are not.

Take statistics for example. Everyone loves to flaunt them, because they allow you to use evidence to support your argument, but are they really that good?

How about this little gem, stripped from the pages of that vaunted newspaper, the New York Times (Hint: insert Sarcasm symbol here), which authoritatively asserted the following: ‘In the United States, the death rate from gun homicides is about thirty-one per million people or the equivalent of twenty-seven people shot and killed every day.’

Just to drive home the point, they included a graph with more statistics, showing just how blood thirsty we Americans are. Seriously, it was like we are up here (hold your left hand up high) and they are ALL down here (hold your right hand down really low). Wow, that’s ominous……. 

It’s not accurate mind you, but very ominous, which is exactly the point.

You see the pundits and politicians don’t want you to know the truth, they just want you to accept their facts.

For the better part of my law enforcement career I was an investigator. Show me a stat and the first thing I want to know is: what was your methodology? What’s that? you ask.

Well, methodology is the systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study. Or, as my astute boss once told me: garbage in, garbage out.

Too often we take the stats being offered as honest representations of the facts. They aren’t. In fact they are skewed to make you support what is being offered to you. So take the New York Times article, what should we take away from it? Well, number one would be that the United States is pretty damn violent and, number two that only rich, Western countries, with a GDP per capita over $25,000.00, matter.

Why is this significant? Because they want you to believe that we really are that damn violent.

The New York Times is anti-gun. Asking them for the unvarnished truth on guns is like asking the Devil to cite the benefits of Christianity. But let’s not bash on the Times alone. How about this from CBS News:

“Murder is the second leading cause of death among Americans aged 15 to 24, the study found. The research also showed that murder was the third leading cause of death among those aged 25-34. Compared to those in the same age groups in other wealthy countries, Americans aged 15-24 are 49 times more likely to be the victim of a gun-related murder. For those aged 25-34, that number is 32 times more likely, the research revealed.”

So, are we really that violent? Well, let’s look at some real numbers.

For the moment, let’s ignore the age groups. I’ll get back to them later. For now, let’s accept that there are roughly 320 + million people in the United States. We are number three in the world, but we only make up about 4 ½ percent of the population. In fact, China and India both beat us soundly by about one billion people EACH. That’s a pretty sobering stat, isn’t it?

Of those 320+ million, there are roughly 270 million guns owned by citizens. I’m not going to give you the stat, because I’m really not that good with math, so I will just say that we, collectively, have a LOT of guns. In fact, according to the Geneva based Small Arms Survey, the leading source of international public information about firearms, the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated average of 90 firearms for every 100 residents.  If you like Wikipedia, that number jumps to 112.6. Why the disparagement in numbers? Statistics!

So, given either of those statistics, you would think the United States would lead the world in gun violence….. Right? The truthful answer is, No.

You see, many people like to pick and choose their stats. A methodology I prefer to think of as never having to say you’re wrong.

Most research focuses around what is best described as high income countries. Why? I don’t know. Last I looked bullets didn’t seem to discriminate along sex, race or religion, so why financial? I’m sure that there are some socio economic indicators that they will spout-off to validate their claims, but that’s kind of silly.  It’s also called cherry picking your data, which they seem to love to do. Guess diversity only matters some of the time……… How ironic.

So, with that many guns one would certainly be within their mathematical rights to extrapolate that the United States would obviously be the world’s murder capitol….. Right? And the answer is: No.

According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime the country that leads the world in intentional homicide is: Honduras, that socialist enclave in Central America, which has a rate of 84.6 per 100,000 inhabitants, despite restrictive civilian ownership of guns. Its fellow socialist and gun restricting neighbor, El Salvador is number two on the list.

Hmmm, corrupt, socialist government’s which don’t like guns, what a novel idea.

Well, surely the United State is high up on the list…… right? And the answer is still: No.

Scrolling through the list one finds that you have to go all the way down to number 108 (out of 218) to find the U.S. According to the U.N., statistically, you are more likely to die visiting a tropical resort in the Bahamas than you are in the United States.

So what is the problem?

Well, the problem is that no one wants to address the actual problem.

Awhile back there was a meme that pointed out that both Honduras and Switzerland had the same population, yet Honduras, with their gun laws, led the world in murder, but Switzerland, without the same strict gun laws, had one of the lowest murder rates. Everyone jumped on that saying that it was a flawed argument. 

Remember before that I said some would point to socio economic indicators to validate their claims? Well, the truth is that they want to cherry pick every form of data so that it validates their claims. They will tell you that you can’t factor in certain things because they are not relevant to the equation. Such was the case with Honduras. The experts claimed that you couldn’t equate the two because of the cultural, political and socio economic factors that play into gun violence, or a lack thereof.

Here is the problem I have with this argument:

• In 2016, Omar Mateen murdered 49 people in Orlando. The left immediately blamed guns.
• In 2015, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik murdered 14 people in San Bernardino. The left immediately blamed guns.
• In 2015, Robert Lewis Dear murdered 3 people in Colorado. The left immediately blamed guns.
• In 2015, Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer murdered 9 people in Oregon. The left immediately blamed guns.
• In 2015, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez murdered 5 people in Tennessee. The left immediately blamed guns.
• In 2015, Dylann Storm Roof murdered 9 people in South Carolina. The left immediately blamed guns.
• In 2014, Elliot Rodger murdered 6 people in California. The left immediately blames guns.
• In 2014, Nidal Hassan murdered 3 people in Texas. The left immediately blamed guns.
• In 2013, Aaron Alexis murdered 12 people in Washington, D.C. The left immediately blamed guns.
• In 2012, Adam Lanza murdered 27 people in Connecticut. The left immediately blamed guns.
• In 2012, James Holmes murdered 12 people in Colorado. The left immediately blamed guns.

The left will tell you that we should not consider certain factors, yet every time they focus solely on one factor: Guns. Let me tell you what they don’t want you to consider: the individual.

You see, they have no answer for the individual. They can’t explain to you why one person breaks the law and another person doesn’t. They come up with every excuse in the world as to why inner-city places like: St. Louis, Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York City, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Newark, New Orleans, Oakland, and Washington D.C. have such high crime rates, yet cities in the gun-crazy state of Texas, like Plano, El Paso, Arlington, and Austin don’t.  

Ironically, the left will tell you that you cannot factor some countries, because they have certain socio economic factors at play, yet they will tell you that you must include all U.S. cities, that have those very same socio economic factors, when you are talking about gun violence in the United States. Well, that’s so dumb it makes me squint. What would happen if you did a side by side comparison, you know like Honduras and Switzerland?

Well, Detroit and El Paso have almost the same identical population, yet Detroit has a murder rate of 43.5 while El Paso has a murder rate of 3.1. Heck, Fort Worth, which has a substantially larger population than Baltimore, is only 6.1 compared to the latter’s 33.8.

Shootingtracker, the site everyone goes to in order to document all the horrible mass shootings, listed an amazing 332 mass shootings for 2015, but when you research it a bit further you notice something unusual. Some of the urban cities, like I listed above, also have a larger percentage of the shootings. Call me crazy, but I don’t think it is legal gun owners shooting things up in Detroit, NYC or Baltimore.

Could it be the individual? Could it be that 15-24 and 25-34 demographic? Perhaps they might even be criminals? Or worse yet, actual radical Islamic terrorists? (Gasp)

So what do these vaunted cities have in common that makes them so vastly different?

• St. Louis - 1949
• Detroit – 1962
• Philadelphia – 1952
• Chicago – 1931
• New York City – 1971
• Baltimore – 1967
• Cincinnati – 1979
• Newark – 1953
• New Orleans – 1870 (Seriously? WTF?)
• Oakland – 1977
• Washington D.C. – NEVER

The numbers next to each city is the last year that they had a Republican mayor. Think we might have hit on something here?

To be fair, I did not count the Rudolph Giuliani era in NYC as it was more of an aberration. The old saying in NYC was that Christ himself couldn’t get elected mayor of NYC if he was a Republican. Truthfully, the last true Republican in NYC was Fiorello Laguardia in 1933. Giuliani won simply because the city hit rock bottom and had finally stopped digging. Michael Bloomberg was never a Republican, as evidenced by his own anti-gun / liberal policies, and John Lindsey was what would best be considered a RINO.

In my adopted home state of Illinois, every Monday brings another report of the weekend murders in Chicago. Over the Father’s Day weekend there were thirteen people killed and at least forty-two others wounded.  One weekend!  So far this year there have been 280 people killed and another 1,520 wounded. Do you even wonder why they call it Chiraq? In Chicago a person is shot, on average, every two hours and murdered every thirteen. You have a better chance of dying on the streets of Chicago then you do in Baghdad!

There comes a time when you have to stop blaming things and start blaming people.

The lefts clarion call for more gun control is a façade.  A dog whistle designed to focus your attention away from the real problem which is a complete breakdown in society. The cities with the highest violence are the same cities with the biggest ‘socio econimic’ problems and they are the same cities were Democrats keep getting re-elected.

The truth is that the politicians and pundits don’t have an answer for the individual, so they default back to gun control. They wring their hands, blame legal gun owners, pass even more restrictive gun laws (which only legal gun owners will obey) and then feign shock when things don’t change.

Here’s a newsflash, criminals really don’t care how many gun laws you pass……. They’re criminals!! Which is precisely the reason why those silly little ‘no gun’ placards have zero impact.

This is like a social experiment go awry, political correctness run amok.  We now live in an age where personal responsibility is in the middle of its death throes. Forty percent of all births are now to unmarried woman. Education levels are plummeting, incarceration rates are rising, and more people can’t find full-time work. Criminals are viewed as victims, while the police are viewed as criminals. We redefine terrorism as a hate crime, to make it seem more palatable, so we can turn away attention from the abject failures of the government. We are developing a mindset that we need the government to care for us from cradle-to-grave. Welfare is viewed as a right, while Social Security is viewed as an entitlement program.

But no, really, guns are the real problem.

We need to wake up and realize that we have been betrayed.

I remember back during the riots in Baltimore where a mother, Toya Graham, was caught on film slapping her son, after she saw him with a mask on and a brick in his hand, and pulling him out of a protest. I use the word protest loosely, because that’s the word the media used to explain the utter lawlessness that ran rampant through the city. I remember hearing a number of people calling for her to be investigated for what she did. Imagine that, a mother trying to get her child to act properly was going to be investigated. The media even asked her if she was concerned that she had embarrassed her son. Ms. Graham’s response: “Not at all, he was embarrassing himself by wearing that mask, that hoodie and doing what he was doing."

It’s amazing to me that, as we watched the city burn, the media’s concern was of a mother embarrassing her child by trying to get him away from the problem. Where are the rest of the Toya Graham’s of the world? Why have we abandoned the concept of personal responsibility? When did it become okay to blame the gun, but not the shooter?

As I said earlier, it is estimated that there are anywhere between 90 and 112 firearms per 100 people in the United States. The truth is that if gun owners were really as bad as we are made out to be, you’d know about.  

A recent report said that, over the past decade (2005-15), there were just over three hundred thousand gun related deaths in the United States. I think most people would agree this is incredibly high number, at least until you consider that it comes out to about thirty thousand a year. Of that number, less than 1/3 are attributable to homicides. Suicides and accidents comprise the other 2/3’s.

So what about the big bad Assault Rifles? Surely they must be responsible. I mean we are constantly being told that they are evil weapons of war that the politicians and media tout at every opportunity.  Well, beside the fact that they aren’t even actual Assault Rifles, the truth is they aren’t even used all that often. Of the roughly 8-9k gun related homicides each year, only around 300 were used. That’s all rifles, not just the evil AR-15 or AK-47. In fact, you have a better chance of being killed by knives, blunt objects or physical assault, than you are by a rifle.

“But, but…. I just heard that the American Medical Association called gun violence a public health crisis and has asked the CDC to research it.”

Well If I was the AMA I would as well, that’s because they probably don’t want you looking at them.

Why you ask? Because what you probably don’t know is that each year there are an estimated quarter of a million deaths from medical malpractice. Some reporting agencies put the number as high as nearly half a million. Let that sink in for a moment the next time you go see the doctor. You are far more likely to die this year, as a result of medical malpractice, then you are in over a decade of all firearms deaths.

The truth is you are far more likely to die from: Medical Errors, Hospital Infection, Alcohol, Tobacco, Motor Vehicle Crashes, Suicide, Drunk Driving, Poisoning (unintentional), Accidents (unintentional), than you are by a firearm. Consider only rifles used in homicides and you can add walking, drowning, fire, malnutrition, and falling out of bed to the list of things that are more dangerous.  This doesn't even include the usual medical issues of: Cancer, Obesity, Stroke, Diabetes, Pneumonia, etc.

Perhaps we should ban all assault fast food....

So why all the screaming and gnashing of teeth then? Because they don’t like them.

That’s it, in a nutshell.

For a moment, I want you to take a long hard look at the media. I want you to make a mental note of each time you hear a report about guns. Are they reporting the news, or are they telling you a story? Once you realize just how widespread this anti-gun bias is, you’ll be shocked.

Just recently, the darling child of the media, Katie Couric, was investigated over a gun documentary she did. Rather than just present the show, in its entirety, Ms. Couric’s crew selectively edited it. When Couric asked the group a question, regarding the ability of convicted felons and those on the terror watch list to legally obtain a gun, there was dramatic eight-second silence, as the camera panned the faces of the gun owners,  implying that the group had no answer. The truth was that they had immediately responded to the question. Simply put, the documentary was craftily edited to make the pro-gun group look bad and to present you with their anti-gun agenda.

Immediately after the Orlando terror attack, the media was dispatched in droves to seek out the horrific weapon of war and show how easy it is to buy one. In their zeal, some took it a bit far. Several reporters gleefully recalled how they could purchase one. Of course no one had a criminal record, so it was tantamount to someone over the age of 21 proclaiming they had just purchased alcohol. I’m not sure what is so amazing about purchasing something legally. A CNN reporter confronted Florida Governor Rick Scott with this question:  “Yes, ISIS, terrorism could be to blame for this, but can you accept any responsibility for the gun laws here in Florida?”

Seriously? ‘Could be?’ What does it take for them to call this horrific act terrorism?

Once again we see that it is not about terrorism, not about the individual, but all about those bad scary guns.

A New York Daily News reporter went so far as to describe his shooting of an AR 15 as: “It felt to me like a bazooka and sounded like a cannon. But mostly, I was just terrified.”

Awesome,…… Just for the record, my kids enthusiastically shot them (along with that evil AK-47) as they were growing up, but not this middle-aged man who gleefully added: “The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.”

PT FUCKING SD? Seriously?  

The writer then had to do a follow-up article, apologizing for his rather huge PTSD leap, which he then promptly used as a platform to attack those who called him out on his nonsense.  I’m sorry, but he knew what he was doing in his original article and the second was no better, but that’s the real problem. You see they just don’t like guns. They have this exaggerated fear of something and that is enough for them to decide that you can’t have it. If you disagree with them they berate you, or, as in the case of the reporter, if you call them out on their nonsense, they cry foul and run to the nearest safe-space. Sorry, you don’t get to have it both ways.

I spent over two decades in law enforcement, twenty with the NYPD, and I have owned firearms for over three decades. I have trained on and fired just about every handgun / rifle caliber from .22 to .308. I am also an NRA certified instructor. So who out there on the left is going to tell me that I don’t possess the pre-requisite capabilities and training to own these firearms? You would think that someone with my background would be opposed to these horrific weapons being in the hands of mere citizens, but you would be wrong. Gun ownership is a serious thing, but I firmly believe in the 2^nd Amendment and the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

I often hear people saying “you don’t need guns like that.” I’m sorry, but where did you become the arbiter of such matters? Did they offer that as a minor study in your Social Justice Warrior degree program? Again, why are we taking advice from people who have no clue about what they are talking about? Whether you like it or not the 2^nd Amendment really is about those guns.

Unlike you, I know the dangers we truly face in this world. Protection is just an illusion and one I witnessed first-hand on the mean streets of New York City. There were times when we would have four cops on patrol, two cars, for an area that had over a hundred thousand residents. Most crimes are reported, very few are actually stopped. Despite what a lot of people want you to believe: Safety is Not a Right. I’m not sure where this erroneous thought process ever arose, but even the courts have ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect you. The 2^nd Amendment however is an actual RIGHT, and it is precisely this right which allows you, the individual, to protect yourself from someone who means to do you harm.

I saw one Rolling Stone (you know, the same Rolling Stone that elevated Boston Marathon Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, to rock star status on its cover) reporter opining that: “Just think of what would have happened in the Orlando night-club Saturday night if there had been many others armed. How would it not have devolved into mass confusion and fear followed by a large-scale shootout…”

That’s liberal, gun hating, logic on full display. No, it was so much better for the unarmed victims to all huddle together, in a state of panic, while the only person with a gun, a terrorist, casually slaughtered them. How foolish of me.

It’s almost as ironic as Presidential pal, and domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, a co-founder of the Weather Underground Organization, calling for more gun control. Hey, Bill, give us a call when you look to sponsor bomb control.

If you don’t like guns, then don’t own one, but don’t tell me that I can’t, because then we are going to have a problem. Like the old saying goes: “You can give peace a chance, I’ll cover you in case that doesn’t work out.”

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.