Judah Maccabee fighting the Assyrians for Religious Freedom
Is the cycle of violence ever going to end? From Tel Aviv to Paris and now to California, people hell-bent on destroying the peaceful lives of innocents have taken it upon themselves to wreak havoc through the use of violence. But is this really anything new? Hasn't violence through the ages always been used to "push" an agenda or two? Hasn't violence always been the "sure bet" that attention is given to the "cause" of the perpetrators, pushing it to the forefront of discussion and debate? You bet it has! So what is different with today's violence pushing the agenda of Islamic Radicalism from other violence? Nothing, except the seemingly organized use of "terror" makes the attacks that much more salacious. But should it? Really? You bet it should!
One of the definitions of the word Terror is; "violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal." (Merriam-Webster). So by definition, there are multiple terrorist groups across the globe, but at least 75 organizations claiming the foundations of their belief is Islam. So why the refusal to call the face of a majority of terrorism today for what it is - a militaristic arm of Radical Islam? See, that was easy, yet so many Left Wingers still can't seem to say those obvious words? Why? Because to them "peace" must come first, and if it comes, so be it in the expression of "Rest in Peace" (RIP) than that must be good enough. Except, I cannot accept the notion that as long as we "Rest in Peace" all is well. Why? Because when it comes time for my eternal "rest", I would like to ensure that I lived in peace while on this earth and not while buried within it! Kumbaya never works when those you want to "play with" refuse to play peacefully. Punch me enough times in the nose, expect a killer response. Expectations of a killer response may suit those that wish to inflict mayhem and terror, but permanent responses are just that, permanent. For those that wish to kill myself, my family and the ideals of freedom, do so at your own risk! Sound just like a pacifist? Not quite. Sound like a warmonger? Also no. You see I do not promote going out and terrorizing anyone or any group of peoples. I simply want it known that I, like a lot of other freedom loving folks, maintain that terror can only be slowed down enough to begin to hash out a peace. Until it is slowed down, expect harsh violent responses. For we will not "go quietly into the night!" Israelis have lived with this reality in their everyday lives for decades. Only now is the rest of the civilized world slowly waking up to the reality they have vigorously ignored and tried to hide from (except those that demand "infidels" simply go away).
As I have stated repeatedly in the past. I like guns. I believe law-abiding Americans have a Constitutional right to possess a gun to safeguard themselves, their loved ones and their property. I do not believe though that folks considered mentally ill or with a violent past should be able to acquire guns (legally). I mean, they just shouldn't. As I wrote just after the Sandy Hook tragedy, at least we should be having a discussion on what can be done to restrict the sale of firearms to folks that are mentally unstable. If a consumer cannot purchase more than one box of decongestants because it might be used to support a meth lab, why can't someone wishing to purchase a firearm have to wait 48 hours for their gun purchase to be approved. I mean really. If I want to purchase a gun, why would I demand I get it immediately? I had to wait a few days to get my television and kitchen appliances delivered. Why can't I be required to wait a couple of days to take possession of my new Glock? Where in the Constitution does it say Americans can demand instant access to firearms? Back in the days of our Framers, guns were hand made and took time to manufacture and deliver. Rarely could someone purchase a musket on demand (and ammo was simply "put together" for each shot). And if someone is on a Federal "No-Fly" list because they are suspected for being a potential "terrorist", why not force them to seek a remedy to clarify that status before being able to purchase a gun? I know the argument, criminals will get a gun no matter what. Perhaps, but statistically, a strong number of guns in the hands of criminals were purchased legally anyways! Why not at least try something that might have an affect on acquiring guns by those with mental illness? Of course, I am not advocating anyone having to turn their guns in - unless you are a criminal. But can anyone guess the argument against limiting access to guns to those on No-Fly" lists? Wait for it....because those folks have not been afforded their "due process rights" when they were added to the list! Yep, that's the argument. But where were the "Due Process Rights" of the innocents gunned down by radicalized Muslims who "legally" obtained their arsenal of weaponry used in the most recent California attack?
Just this past week, the United States Senate voted down ALL proposals to require a waiting period for the purchase of firearms. First to go down was a proposal to "prohibit the sale of firearms or explosives to individuals on the FBI's terrorist watch list." (See Senate amendments to HR3762). The vote against? 54-45. The next amendment proposed by the GOP called for "a 72 hour hour delay in firearm purchases provided Federal attorneys obtain a court order imposing the delay." But how can the FBI already know who is going to purchase a firearm in order to obtain a court order to delay the sale? They can't, so by offering this measure, the GOP knew in advance it would never work. Lip-service to all Americans wanting some gun-regulations? You bet. The proposed amendment failed to proceed due to a filibuster (no cloture being reached at 55 for and 44 against). A third measure came to a vote in the Senate providing for "criminal and mental-health background checks, in virtually all commercial transactions, including those made online and at gun shows." The intended purpose of this amendment would be to "tighten current procedures that are estimated to allow more than half of non-private U.S. gun sales to avoid the National Criminal Background Check System." This measure also died by a vote of 50-48. The only thing surprising in these votes? Marco Rubio showed up to vote against each of them. Senator Rubio must think making a rare appearance in the Senate is enough to overcome criticism of his poor attendance. One thing is for sure, his campaign will be cashing contributions from the N.R.A.
Once again, I am not advocating measures that limit the ability of Americans to buy and possess firearms. I simply think that having a system of background checks and the ability to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill individuals will at least help. Even though terror will always find its way to hurt us, perhaps many Americans can be saved from the violence of the mentally deranged who follow "voices in their heads" to kill. And if you are a law abiding citizen and own a gun, practice with your gun, learn firearm safety and protect yourself, your property and your community. And better yet, use it to prevent further violence by those who choose to use violence for any reason - including terrorism!
As President Dwight D. Eisenhower once wrote; "We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it."
I stand with gun owners when it comes to protecting their rights! I stand with victims to be safeguarded against nut jobs and terrorists hell-bent on taking away others' rights as well. And I stand for freedom that includes the right to LIVE in peace, protect that peace as well as rest in peace. Happy Chanukah to everyone - where violence was required to safeguard everyone's right to freely and peacefully practice their own religion! Have a great week!
One of the definitions of the word Terror is; "violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal." (Merriam-Webster). So by definition, there are multiple terrorist groups across the globe, but at least 75 organizations claiming the foundations of their belief is Islam. So why the refusal to call the face of a majority of terrorism today for what it is - a militaristic arm of Radical Islam? See, that was easy, yet so many Left Wingers still can't seem to say those obvious words? Why? Because to them "peace" must come first, and if it comes, so be it in the expression of "Rest in Peace" (RIP) than that must be good enough. Except, I cannot accept the notion that as long as we "Rest in Peace" all is well. Why? Because when it comes time for my eternal "rest", I would like to ensure that I lived in peace while on this earth and not while buried within it! Kumbaya never works when those you want to "play with" refuse to play peacefully. Punch me enough times in the nose, expect a killer response. Expectations of a killer response may suit those that wish to inflict mayhem and terror, but permanent responses are just that, permanent. For those that wish to kill myself, my family and the ideals of freedom, do so at your own risk! Sound just like a pacifist? Not quite. Sound like a warmonger? Also no. You see I do not promote going out and terrorizing anyone or any group of peoples. I simply want it known that I, like a lot of other freedom loving folks, maintain that terror can only be slowed down enough to begin to hash out a peace. Until it is slowed down, expect harsh violent responses. For we will not "go quietly into the night!" Israelis have lived with this reality in their everyday lives for decades. Only now is the rest of the civilized world slowly waking up to the reality they have vigorously ignored and tried to hide from (except those that demand "infidels" simply go away).
As I have stated repeatedly in the past. I like guns. I believe law-abiding Americans have a Constitutional right to possess a gun to safeguard themselves, their loved ones and their property. I do not believe though that folks considered mentally ill or with a violent past should be able to acquire guns (legally). I mean, they just shouldn't. As I wrote just after the Sandy Hook tragedy, at least we should be having a discussion on what can be done to restrict the sale of firearms to folks that are mentally unstable. If a consumer cannot purchase more than one box of decongestants because it might be used to support a meth lab, why can't someone wishing to purchase a firearm have to wait 48 hours for their gun purchase to be approved. I mean really. If I want to purchase a gun, why would I demand I get it immediately? I had to wait a few days to get my television and kitchen appliances delivered. Why can't I be required to wait a couple of days to take possession of my new Glock? Where in the Constitution does it say Americans can demand instant access to firearms? Back in the days of our Framers, guns were hand made and took time to manufacture and deliver. Rarely could someone purchase a musket on demand (and ammo was simply "put together" for each shot). And if someone is on a Federal "No-Fly" list because they are suspected for being a potential "terrorist", why not force them to seek a remedy to clarify that status before being able to purchase a gun? I know the argument, criminals will get a gun no matter what. Perhaps, but statistically, a strong number of guns in the hands of criminals were purchased legally anyways! Why not at least try something that might have an affect on acquiring guns by those with mental illness? Of course, I am not advocating anyone having to turn their guns in - unless you are a criminal. But can anyone guess the argument against limiting access to guns to those on No-Fly" lists? Wait for it....because those folks have not been afforded their "due process rights" when they were added to the list! Yep, that's the argument. But where were the "Due Process Rights" of the innocents gunned down by radicalized Muslims who "legally" obtained their arsenal of weaponry used in the most recent California attack?
Just this past week, the United States Senate voted down ALL proposals to require a waiting period for the purchase of firearms. First to go down was a proposal to "prohibit the sale of firearms or explosives to individuals on the FBI's terrorist watch list." (See Senate amendments to HR3762). The vote against? 54-45. The next amendment proposed by the GOP called for "a 72 hour hour delay in firearm purchases provided Federal attorneys obtain a court order imposing the delay." But how can the FBI already know who is going to purchase a firearm in order to obtain a court order to delay the sale? They can't, so by offering this measure, the GOP knew in advance it would never work. Lip-service to all Americans wanting some gun-regulations? You bet. The proposed amendment failed to proceed due to a filibuster (no cloture being reached at 55 for and 44 against). A third measure came to a vote in the Senate providing for "criminal and mental-health background checks, in virtually all commercial transactions, including those made online and at gun shows." The intended purpose of this amendment would be to "tighten current procedures that are estimated to allow more than half of non-private U.S. gun sales to avoid the National Criminal Background Check System." This measure also died by a vote of 50-48. The only thing surprising in these votes? Marco Rubio showed up to vote against each of them. Senator Rubio must think making a rare appearance in the Senate is enough to overcome criticism of his poor attendance. One thing is for sure, his campaign will be cashing contributions from the N.R.A.
Once again, I am not advocating measures that limit the ability of Americans to buy and possess firearms. I simply think that having a system of background checks and the ability to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill individuals will at least help. Even though terror will always find its way to hurt us, perhaps many Americans can be saved from the violence of the mentally deranged who follow "voices in their heads" to kill. And if you are a law abiding citizen and own a gun, practice with your gun, learn firearm safety and protect yourself, your property and your community. And better yet, use it to prevent further violence by those who choose to use violence for any reason - including terrorism!
As President Dwight D. Eisenhower once wrote; "We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it."
I stand with gun owners when it comes to protecting their rights! I stand with victims to be safeguarded against nut jobs and terrorists hell-bent on taking away others' rights as well. And I stand for freedom that includes the right to LIVE in peace, protect that peace as well as rest in peace. Happy Chanukah to everyone - where violence was required to safeguard everyone's right to freely and peacefully practice their own religion! Have a great week!
RSS Feed
