The Law Cannot Keep You Safe from Harm . . . Only You Can Do That

Standard

In light of what happened in Chicago recently, it is important to understand that, for the most part, in spite of what some claim, our crimiinal laws, even when coupled with Hate Crime Legislation, do NOT shield any of us from harm!

How could they possibly do that?

If someone physically attacks you, criminal laws provide for the attacker’s apprehension and punishment and may later provide you some measure of financial compensation for pain and suffering but the attack happened, it is now a fact of your life and there is no Constitutional or even moral way the law could have prevented that. Criminal law is actually less effective than a home security system or some kind of personal security device that notifies emergency services at the push of a button.

Adding “Hate Crime Legislation” to that criminal law does not add another layer of protection for a member of a “protected class” of people. Hate Crime Legislation does, however, add some disincentives for the criminal. If it can be discerned that the crime was created against a member of a “protected class”, solely due to the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity, the punishment for the perpetrator is more severe. If on the other hand, the crime was committed because of an animus for that particular individual, even if he or she belongs to a protected class, it is not necessarily a hate crime.

The overall point of this post is to make sure that the reader understands that most criminal laws do not shield you from harm, they simply provide you the satisfaction of seeing that your attacker will be punished and they will possibly provide some financial aid to you, the victim.

If you want to be safe from criminals you really have to do it yourself!

* Obtain and use those home or personal security devices.

* If you are able-bodied enough, invest in some self defense training.

* Obtain a weapon and, most importantly, learn the rules for using it. If you don’t know when and where you can legally defend yourself you might wind up with serious legal problems.

There are plenty of laws ‘on the books’ that protect and/or punish the criminal and, to be fair, plenty of laws that benefit victims, but protecting yourself from a crime is pretty much up to you.

Advertisements

Gun Control Or Public Safety?

Standard

To start, let me say that I am, for the most part at least, a strong Conservative. That is to say, I believe in small, limited government, a strong military, secure borders, and free enterprise with only the most necessary restrictions on business. I also believe in legal gun ownership.

Some people believe it should be everyone’s unrestricted RIGHT to own and even openly carry a handgun on their hip. Here in Texas, as in many other states, we have that right, but there are some commonsense restrictions such as having a clean criminal record and not having a diagnosed mental disorder that would make us a danger to others. There are very few responsible American citizens who object to those restrictions.

Yesterday, President Obama announced 10 steps he will take, through executive actions, to enforce those commonsense restrictions and help prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who ‘should not own guns.’

Immediately Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular began sounding alarms and the right-wing media began throwing around the term “gun control’ in the headlines. They are calling the president’s proposals illegal and un-Constitutional; Marco Rubio is quoted as saying  the President is “waging war” on the Constitution and Ted Cruz is promising that if he wins the presidency, these and other Obama executive actions will all be repealed.

All that is for the courts to decide and while the kinds of actions Obama proposed may fall under the very broadest definition of “gun control” they are, more importantly, clearly needed Public Safety measures.

The dirty little secret that the people who are screaming “gun control” are not being very vocal about is the fact that IF THEY had stopped playing politics long enough to create some clean, commonsense legislation that had eliminated some of the public safety threats caused by guns being in the wrong hands; what is about to happen via executive actions would not have been necessary.

A prime example is closing the gun show ‘loopholes’. What, I ask, is worse: causing some minor inconvenience for people who want guns for personal protection or sport, or selling a gun to someone who will have no second thoughts about using it to commit a crime or to someone who is incapable of distinguishing legal behavior from illegal behavior?

Conservative lawmakers are screaming about the 2nd Amendment being violated. Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says: “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.” In other words, it does not address the problems that are caused by ‘guns in the wrong hands’ so regulations about gun sales, which were proposed yesterday, can hardly be considered a violation of the amendment.

It’s true that nothing being proposed for executive actions would have likely stopped the vast majority of mass shootings we hear about so often but you can be sure that they will make it harder for people who should not have guns to legally own guns, and that will certainly save some lives.

On Monday night the President Tweeted the accusation that the “gun lobby” may be holding Congress hostage, not a comforting thought, but perhaps a very realistic one, considering that Washington is chock full of politicians who care more about funding their next campaign than they do about their constituents’ safety. 

All this is not to say that President Obama is not incompetent or that he does not have a deep dislike for what is traditionally American or that he has not proposed many dangerous, reckless and frankly stupid things in the past. He has always impressed me as someone with an Anti-American agenda, but on this one issue I personally can’t fault his actions.

I want everyone to own and even, if they want, carry a gun — everyone except, that is, the people who are a danger to me and you and our families.

Liberalism: Naive or Diabolical

Standard

This past week brought with it another lesson for voters: take what you read and hear in the media (even some of the “Conservative” media) with ‘a grain of salt.’ Cases in point are the insinuations against Dr. Ben Carson and the consistent editorializing and misinterpreting of what he says.

As an example, Dr. Carson made the simple, logical statement that he feels that “the likelihood of Hitler accomplishing his goals” (the goal of exterminating the Jewish people, from the face of Germany and then from the world) “would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.”

It’s very hard for me to rationalize opposition to that statement. Carson was NOT saying that the Holocaust would not have happened. Obviously the power and armament of the German Army would most likely have eventually overwhelmed even the most well armed and aggressive civilian opponents of Hitler’s plans, Carson was simply voicing the common sense dictum that you have a much greater chance of not being defeated if you are equipped to fight back. The problem is, Ben Carson is trying to express this common sense to people who stopped listening as soon as he said the name ‘Hitler.’

Hitler’s name is a sore spot with people who support Liberal causes, especially gun control which was the particular Liberal cause that Carson was attacking.

“I’m telling you there’s a reason these dictatorial people take guns first.” Carson told Wolf Blitzer in the CNN interview.

The immediate problem with suggesting to a Liberal that gun control does not prevent murder, but instead prevents self-defense is that that fact (and it IS a fact) is an indictment of a core Liberal belief that guns are more dangerous than people; and more than that, it is an indictment of their beloved President Obama.

What, predictably, is the first thing that will happen after some crazy shoots and kills a group of people? Obama will be on TV calling for “more gun control” and either ignoring or dismissing the growing number of voices that are asking: What If?

WHAT IF there were guns being carried by one or more people in a group being attacked by a shooter? It will save many lives if the shooter is put down as soon as he shows his gun or at least immediately after his first shot.

WHAT IF  there were no “gun free zones.” It would prevent a majority of mass shooting attempts (by all but the most suicidal shooters) if it is obvious to a perpetrator that he will not be able to walk away from the situation.

Obama is a well educated man and a clever manipulator of people and situations. Don’t you think that he realizes that gun control does nothing but disarm the people who would not consider using a gun for anything but self defense or hunting?

Isn’t it obvious that that is exactly the point Dr. Carson was making with his Hitler analogy?

Time and time again President Obama has clearly illustrated his contempt for the Constitution, his disregard for National as well as personal self-defense and his determination to change the face of America.

America does not need a facelift! Nor does it need a Liberal successor to Obama, who will continue guiding America on the destructive course Obama has set for it.

In my opinion, what America needs is a president with common sense, a dislike of politics as usual, a disregard for political correctness, great respect for the United States Constitution and an unbounded dedication to restoring America to its former greatness.

In my view, there are only a few contenders for the presidency who fit that description. Watch the Liberal media (CNN, MSNBC and most networks) and you will see those few contenders regularly denigrated, dismissed and/or misinterpreted.

South Caroline Church Bloodshed Could Have Ended Sooner

Standard

From the June 19th, New York Times Political News NOW section: “Martin O’Malley, a Democratic candidate for president, called for a new national assault weapons ban and other gun control measures in an email sent to supporters after the shooting deaths at a South Carolina church this week.

An assault weapons ban, which has nothing to do with the massacre at the South Carolina Church, is an idea that has seen plenty of ‘daylight’ in the past but, thanks to the NRA, it has virtually disappeared from the news. Banning assault weapons is not an altogether bad idea; except that it probably violates the Constitution, But before Mr. O’Malley begins to open his mouth and spew forth the phrase “other gun control measures” he needs to take his head out of the sand and understand the FACT that if one or two members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church had hand-guns on their persons and had the guts to use them, lives would have been saved.

Insanity seems to reign in the world of Liberals as it does in the world of Religion. When you consider the “forgiveness” that rained down on that wothless piece of crap who not only shot and killed 9 people but shot them repeatedly, reportedly having to reload several times, you have to wonder about the sanity of the survivors, I cannot forgive those who forgave Dylann Roof for their blatent disregard for the safety of their fellow parishioners. They apparently believe in heaven so much they are willing to allow a murderer to continue the bloodshed without raising a hand (or other weapon) against him. There were most likely worshipers on every side of Roof and apparently not one of them had the guts to “cold-cock’ him with a fist or hymnal or brass candlestick.

Mr O’Mally and others of his mindset refuse to understand the power for good of a gun in the hands of a good person. Killing someone is not a bad thing if it is done with the proper motive and saves the lives of future victims; even most “believers” will tell you that. But unfortunately, Liberals like O’Malley do not believe that the average citizen is intelligent enough to be trusted with that kind of decision.

Hate Crime?

Right now Obama’s lap-dog U.S. Attorney General is supposedly deciding whether or not to charge Roof with a hate crime. Just another publicity stunt! A man who is witnessed shooting 9 people to death must certainly qualify for the death penalty regardless of what is “in his heart” but under the Obama Administration “racial equality and justice” are far more important than common sense or even common law.

REFERENCES:

New York Times: “An Angry O’Malley Calls for an Assault Weapons Ban” 

New York Times:In Charleston, Raw Emotion at Hearing for Suspect in Church Shooting

Who are the Racists in Furguson?

Standard

As we all waited for the Ferguson Grand Jury decision last night and watched the news networks trying to fill time by playing old “statements” by Michael Brown’s parents and the parent’s lawyer the thought came to me that Ferguson Missouri may as well be in a 100 year old alternate universe.

First of all, Michael Brown’s parents are complaining that they are “NOT being treated as victims”; hard to understand why they think they should be when their son unquestionably committed two crimes, petty theft followed by assaulting a police officer. The police officer was the victim. Excuse me if I’m messing with the mother’s comfortable victim mentality but that’s just not a healthy or acceptable attitude. The Brown’s lawyer is calling for “justice” for Michael Brown; well it looks like he got the justice that would be due to anyone of any race who physically assaulted a police officer and then charged at him like a raging bull. Last night’s verdict was a no-bill for Officer Wilson and a clear indictment of Michael Brown.

It appears that Michael Brown’s parents are happily ignoring their son’s criminal behavior and ignoring the facts that he was violent and hyped up as well on marijuana, and are only focusing only on the fact that a white police officer killed their son. I guess the “Gentle Giant’s” parents feel that being white while enforcing the law in Ferguson is a crime in itself.

Take this to the bank: If a 6’5″, 300 pound white kid was shot dead on the streets of Ferguson, Mo. under identical circumstances by a police officer, regardless of the officer’s race, you can be sure that the town of Ferguson would still be intact and the use of tear gas and National Guard troops would have been unnecessary. If that was the case, that the kid was white, you would also have heard nothing from the White House and would have not seen Eric Holder or, of course Rev. Al Sharpton, anywhere near the city of Ferguson. That may seem like a terribly “racist” thing for me to say but whoever you are reading this post, you know I’m right.

The incident that ended with the death of Michael Brown had nothing to do with a systemic problem of white racism, as some people in the news media are alleging; the charge of systemic racism belongs to the black community of Ferguson; and if anyone is responsible for destroying a good part of the Ferguson business community and causing other damage last night it is the criminal element from Ferguson, the out-of-towners who took advantage of an opportunity to “crap in someone else’s yard” by breaking, looting and setting fires and Michael Brown’s own step-father who stood on a platform and yelled “Burn it down! Burn it all down.”; not the prosecutor, the Grand Jury or Darren Wilson.

All this because Officer Darren Wilson committed the “crimes” of being born white and using his legal right to deadly force when needed!

Yes there are some white people who are racists, who see black people as inferior to them and treat black people like second-class citizens. No denying that, but they all pretty much stay in the shadows because that kind of behavior is unacceptable in American society! It seems evident that there are far far more blacks who do not trust or will not believe any white person solely because they are not black — and that is the very definition of a ‘racist.’

The Thought Police: Hate Crime Legislation and “Protected Classes”

Standard

One of the VERY few things I agree with the Family Research Council (FRC) on is that “hate crime legislation” is in reality “thought crime legislation.’

In Kansas this past weekend a white supremiicist/Nazi wannabe (Frazier Glenn Cross) shot and killed three people at two seperate Jewish-affiliated Centers; a teenage boy and his grandfather at a Jewish community center near Kansas City and then a woman at a nearby Jewish assisted living facility. This man is obviously a sociopath who needs to be removed from society. Whether or not he “hated” jewish people is completely irrelevant. Nonetheless, he will be charged with three hate crimes.

(Not to make light of the situation but it was revealed today that none of Cross’ three victims were Jewish. Is that is the perfect  definition of an incompetent Nazi sociopath?)

In my view: the time and money it takes to research Hate Crimes Legislation or do the paperwork required to bring the Federal Government into the investigation (hate crimes are Federal crimes and must be tried in a Federal court) are a complete waste. Beyond that, a crime like unjustifed cold-blooded murder, whatever the motivation, especially when it is committed by a person with this man’s reputation and criminal record, after conviction, should be punished by death, without concern for what was going through his sick mind.

In my view, a bullet in his brain, in a public venue, administered by a relative of either family who volunteers for the task, is the perfect punishment and a far greater deterant to others who contemplate murder, than the normal execution in prison would be. Nothing wrong with that, anyone opposed doesn’t have to watch. (The Supreme Court would, of course, never allow an ‘inhumane’ execution like that but what do they know — they let Obamacare’s  public mandate off the hook as just another tax.)

Hate crime legislation in general is an Orwellian idea that does nothing but de-emphasize the crime. If you intentionally, unjustifiably kill someone — you should loose your life and if the execution is carried out humainly in a prison it has no impact; it does virtually nothing to prevent another murder by another criminal.

Yes even a piece of trash like Frazier Glenn Cross deserves a trial by a jury of citizens, but if found guilty of unjustifiable murder there should be no recourse; the “trash” must be taken out. Taken out in a controlled public setting and executed in the same or a similar manner as his victims were executed.

Hate crimes legislation only applies when the victim of the incident is a member of a “protected class.” These protected classes include race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability and sexual orientation (added last in June of 2013). Under Federal Law there are increased penalties for crimes against people who are members of these classes if it can be proved that the crime was committed specifically because of the victims status under one of these classes.

The message apparently is: ‘if you just have to kill someone tonight, it’s better to kill a young, straight white guy’! His life is far less valuable than a minority life! Is that really  a message we want to send?

It has been proven time and time again, the threat of increased penelties has no effect on someone who is predisposed to committing a crime. I believe that taking the punishment phase of the crime of murder out of the shadows, out of the basement of a Federal Prison, broadcasting it live on PBS and broadcasting it on closed circuit television to every prison cell in the country, would have a much greater effect on the murder rate.

This would not, by the way, make us an uncivilized country, it would just emphasize the fact that we are a nation that  does not accept cold-blooded murder, without ample justification, as a staple of everyday life.

John McCain the “Kumbaya” Senator

Standard

Jon McCain, the voice of deteriorating American values from Arizona, apparently agrees with President Obama that self defense (stand your ground) is far too ‘rude’ of a tactic, especially when used in a racially charged situation.

Before “stand your ground” the law basically required that you run away from trouble; you had a legal “duty to retreat” unless you had no way to avoid the confrontation. The exception to that was the “Castle Doctrine” that provided that everyone has the right to defend their person and property, including the reasonable use of deadly force, in their own home.

In states where Stand Your Ground Laws are in effect, everyone now has the legal right to use “reasonable’ force to defend themselves and they are not required to evade or retreat from dangerous situations. This law has nothing to do with guns, except the obvious; if you are carrying a weapon you must be in legal possession of the gun and in a place where you are legally allowed to have it in your possession and not committing a crime.

It is also very important to note and remember that, while Florida does have a stand your ground law, it was never used as a legal defense of George Zimmerman’s actions — it did not apply since Zimmerman was attacked and pinned to the ground and could not retreat even if he had wanted to. Also note that race was not a factor in the trial; in that situation the race of the combatants did not matter. Zimmerman’s initial call to the police did not mention the race of the suspect — it’s doubtful, considering the time of day, the poor visibility in the rain and the fact that Trayvon had his hood up that Zimmerman knew Trayvon was black. The race hustlers however, want you to believe that the only reason Trayvon is dead is because he is black. Of course these are the same people who insist that Trayvon was the innocent party; their only “proof” of that is that he’s black and Zimmerman is not!

Even though the Stand Your Ground law was not a bone of contention during the trial, that law is still part of Florida law and the Zimmerman jury found, in the words of the law, that a person in Zimmerman’s situation on that rainy February night has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.”

Rather that agreeing with the liars and race hustlers, John McCain should be confronting them, starting with President Obama, who has, time after time, disgracefully, put himself forward as a “black” president rather than an American president. McCain needs to point out to them and to every American that “stand your ground” was a basic American value in EVERY community in America long before it was codified in some states. Generally, American’s not backing down in the face of danger has been an American principle since before George Washington was made president.

One regrets whatever happened to John McCain to make him a compromiser rather than a man with principles that will not be compromised. It’s not too much of a surprise however; John McCain, like many other Legislators, are reluctant to confront the Al Sharptons’, Jessie Jacksons’ and the other race hustlers. They are afraid to be called a racist for standing up for principles rather than playing their race games. The result is, they are compromising commonsense principles for votes. Sticks, stones and thugs like Trayvon Martin may brake your bones guys (and girls) but the name racist, coming from professional racists like Sharpton, Jackson and the NAACP will never hurt you.

I’ll never criticize an individual for choosing to avoid violent confrontations and the pain that may come with them but I certainly can’t agree with the “duty to retreat” laws that, if Stand Your Ground was not there, would make it a criminal offense to use necessary force if you choose to defend yourself rather that “retreat.”

REFERENCES:

NBC Politics: McCain joins Obama in calling for review of ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws

CNN Opinion: How ‘duty to retreat’ became ‘stand your ground’

Wikipedia: Stand-your-ground law