More Progressive? What Does That Mean?

Secretary of State (former) Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernard “Bernie” Sanders are now engaged in arguing who is ‘more progressive’; part of running for the Democrat Party candidate for President.

Really? More progressive?

Progressive in the political meaning as observed by the Democrat Party means “spending other people’s money”. All the agenda items on the progressive platform involves ‘giving’ – what a great word – this or that to those who don’t have it now. Wealth in the form of ‘income equity’, housing, the ability to live freely and move freely. All this wealth without having to work for it.

However, as noted by many thinkers, a government cannot give anything to anyone not taken from someone else first. The government does not ‘produce’ wealth; government only takes wealth away from someone who does produce it.

Consequently, a government – a ‘progressive’ government – gives away ‘wealth’ to supporters at the expense of working people; the actual producers.

So when the two Democrat ‘progressives’ are arguing which is going to raise taxes most and take away more wealth from working people than the other. How delightful.

Of course, one who doesn’t work, doesn’t want to work and quite possibly isn’t capable of doing anything productive is all in favor of this form of ‘redistribution’. This plan is far more profitable than robbing liquor stores or gas stations. This plan is far more profitable than looting. This plan is safer than robbing banks. And it doesn’t result in jail or prison time. Just the thing for Democrat voters.

Of course, ‘progressives’ couch the wealth redistribution plans as “Christian”. After all, Jesus said to take care of the poor. What they miss about what Jesus said is Jesus was speaking to individual Christians. Jesus told His followers they individually were to take an interest in poor people and be individually concerned about them. Jesus never implied or said for a ‘society’ to forcibly take money (tax) from workers and use that money against their will to unquestionably pay non-workers infinitely. In fact, the governmental plan removes the element of concern from the individual about the needy person.

Details, details, details.

So the argument between Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders is who is more willing to forcibly take money from anyone who works and give it to anyone who votes for them. Very attractive for those who vote for a living. Not so great for those who work for a living.

Oh, there are other considerations as well. Progressive also means taxpayer paid abortions on demand. Progressive means avoidance of personal responsibility in terms of service to others or national security. Progressive means denial of the value of the United States as a leader in freedom. Progressive means denial of religious freedom (except currently for Islamics). Progressive means denial of freedom to speak out against a repressive government.

Perfect. If one is an insect.

Leave a comment

Filed under Civilization, General Idiocy, History, Idiot Politicians

There’s a Blizzard Out There!

02 February 2016, Hastings, Nebraska.

For those of you not really paying attention to the national (or international, I suppose) news, it snowed all barking night here. There is a local ‘winter storm warning’ about the snow.

How much? When I looked out this AM, the rail on my back porch – a 2×4 essentially – had a ridge of snow about twelve to fourteen inches (thirty to thirty-six centimeters) high perched on the rail. Had the base been wider, I think it might have been higher, but the top layer of snow is falling off.

Temperatures in the climactic area – the snowstorm – is running between fifteen degrees to upper twenties degrees Fahrenheit (roughly negative 10 to 4 degrees Celsius).

Yes, I am aware there on places on Earth which are quite colder and feature more snow. I am not jealous or envious. I do not want any sort of record for amount of snow, length of time snow is on the ground or cold temperature. This is quite enough for your humble correspondent and his faithful and fearless dog.

Blondie, who is faithful and fearless, went out into the back yard to relieve herself. When she walked into the snow, she sank up to her belly, more or less twelve inches (30 millimeters). She did not like it; normally she loves the colder weather and light snow.

There is enough snow on the front porch to block the screen door somewhat. I can get it open enough to get out and clean off the porch, but I haven’t bothered.

The mailman didn’t come today. I don’t know if I just didn’t have mail (most of it junk anyway) or if the carriers were not moving.

There is wind. According to the weather website, currently the official wind rate is forty miles (60 kilometers, according to the conversion table) per hour. Supposedly it was higher velocity earlier, and is now abating.

The house is warm enough for us. I still wear a sweater or house coat, but it’s comfortable. The house could be better insulated and wind proofed. Much better than a tent, teepee or rough cabin.

Good news is the snow is supposed to taper off and stop during the night. But it won’t disappear instantly. Some of the doughy neighbors have fired up their snow blowers and cleaned off sidewalks and driveways to some extent. The city snow plows are scheduled to start at midnight to clear streets (which will probably block my driveway – sigh…)

I do have food in the house to last a week or so. Already I’ve seen a couple of private citizens in pickup trucks moving down the street. Within a day or so, I’ll be able to get out of the house and get to the store or restaurant. I am not snowed in until the spring thaw in April or May. It just seems like it. The cable TV is working, so I have television and internet.

Arizona is sounding better all the time. The ‘low’ elevations in particular.

Of course, I have backup. God is present in all this and cheers me up. If I were deeply depressed, I wouldn’t be writing this at all. It is sort of a nice excuse to not have to do anything.

I’ll finish up my taxes for submission. (I’m getting a pile back from the Feds; not sure about the state yet.) I’ve also managed to spend nearly $200 on an ‘older’ sight for an ‘older’ rifle I bought in January (by phone). I will check on having my chronograph repaired (there’s a wire loose in the ‘brain’). (Which has been mentioned about me in casual conversation; I don’t have a repair facility for that sort of thing.)

So the dog and I are stuck. Sort of. Sort of a glimpse of being really old and not mobile. We’ll watch “Marvel’s Agent Carter” tonight and probably sleep together. Life could be much worse.

Thanks, Lord.

Leave a comment

Filed under Self Revelation, Speculation

There is fear, and there is fear.

Fear from ‘dictionary.com’: a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid. In this condition, fear is a stimulus for ‘fright or flight’; action or activity to prevent or avoid the potential danger. Running away, shooting back, ducking, changing lanes or sometime simply holding still and concentrating on not tensing muscles during a medical injection.

Fear is the perception of danger or pain. Hopefully this is followed by some action to mitigate or remove the stimulus.

Then, from the Old Man book of experience and observation, fear is a condition gripping both the centers of thought and action (colloquially, ‘heart and brain’) resulting in a lack of action or reaction other than staying in place, voiding one’s bladder and perhaps major intestine; lastly, not avoiding the danger. Some refer to this as the “deer (or rabbit) in the headlights” syndrome.

For instance, those individuals who claim to be adherents of Islam and simultaneously feel the need to murder others to bring Islam to supremacy are known commonly as ‘terrorists’. Most members of U. S. based police agencies understand a finite but definite danger exists from those so described formerly. That is, “terrorists will kill U. S. police officers when convenient for the terrorists”.

Any questions? Good.

Good Fear
Taking steps to avoid being killed (as outlined above) is reasonable. Officers are encouraged to be vigilant, both on and off duty; to keep the mechanical means of self-defense available in all senses of the word; to exercise and keep in good physical shape; to plan ahead as far as possible. Even, in extremis to prepare documents and personal property for one’s eventual demise. (Even without terrorists, one can be T-boned by otherwise ‘innocent’ traffic or contract cancer and so forth.) (Note the attacker’s statements and reasons for attacking officer Harnett.)

Those are all activities and actions I deem proper and reasonable.

Objections? Good.

Recently, one of Philladelphia’s finest – Officer Jesse Harnett – was attacked and wounded (shot) by a man (who shall remain nameless as befits his character in this essay) using a Glock 19 pistol. Said pistol was obtained by the attacker in some fashion AFTER the pistol was stolen from the Philladelphia Police Department. (See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/philadelphia-police-edward-archer-shooting-jesse-hartnett-name-of-islam/ for a full report rather than me cutting and pasting it all.)

Bad Fear

The city mayor – Jim Kenney – has stated in a press conference about the attempted murder “It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.” (At this point, please recall the attacker’s statement.) Not only that, but Mayor Kenney once again – on cue – blames the presence of ‘guns’ for criminal activity.

Since the arm was stolen from the Philadelphia Police (from an individual officer is what is reported); and because Mayor Kenney implies the weapon caused the attacker to attempt the murder of Officer Harnett, one is forced to inquire if the same weapon caused the last officer who possessed the weapon to attempt any murders? Frankly, I don’t think so.

This is an example of the second concept of (bad) fear. Panic. In order to follow the President’s example (demand) of allowing no ill-favored news or reports about Islam, Mayor Kenney is ignoring the comments of the attacker and pretending this was just another criminal doing what criminals do. Blaming guns for criminal acts. Missing from Mayor Kenney’s comments, of course, are warnings of Global Warming and demand for tax-payer funded Abortion. No doubt he’ll be chided for those omissions.

As it happens, based on the news photographs of the attacker, is a black man. Therefore, a black criminal attempted to kill officer Harnett, not a Muslim. I’m wondering how Al Sharpton is going to respond? Also, I’m breathless to see Mayor Kenney’s response to Sharpton.

If Sharpton does not interfere, one wonders why the silence.

Leave a comment

Filed under Civilization, Crime, Idiot Politicians, Islam, Nation, Political Correctness

The Argument for the Triune God

The concept of Trinity is an accepted tenet of Christianity. The concept is widely accepted among almost all groups of Christianity. It is supported by the Bible – normally accepted by all those groups of Christianity. Christians accepting this concept are lumped into the heading of Trinitarians.

The opposition to this concept is the doctrine of Arianism. This should not be confused with Aryanism – the racial theory behind the NAZI ethnic purity belief. Arianism stems from the teachings of Arius; a Christian living about A. D. 250-336. This belief teaches Jesus, called the Christ, was not a person of the God-head, but a created being. (The same teaching dismisses the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost in similar manner.)

The conflict between the Trinitarian and Arian or Non-Trinitarian faction of Christianity is long and detailed in various records. I shall not pursue it further other than to acknowledge the conflict.

The term ‘Trinity’ does not appear in the Bible. Not in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. It is a term later adopted by the aggregate followers of Christ to describe a number of concepts described in the Bible. This is seized upon by the non-trinitarian faction as ‘evidence’ supporting their position.

For clarity, the concept of the Trinity does NOT assert or imply more than One Single God. In actual fact, the Trinity states there is only One God. However, Trinitarians recognize God in Three “Persons”.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit (Ghost in the King James Version).

All three are God in God’s entirety; yet they are individual in perception and function to some degree. (I refer those who do not grasp this or find it contradictory to the modern physics problem of the photon’s nature; is the photon a particle or a wave form?)

I personally have a problem with the term ‘persons’. In modern English (which may be the problem) ‘persons’ implies three different beings, people or entities. Assuredly a superficial view agrees with this implication. (As is the case with Islam and many other of the non-trinitarian views on the subject.) But it is the accepted term and I’m not going to change it here. The usage has a long tradition behind it and probably no other word fits, either. “Facets” or “parts” are even more likely to imply separate existences.

Christians recognize the Bible – in its entirety – to be the message (‘word’) of God to mankind. Therefore, the entire Bible is to be considered in determining the validity of the Trinity. Any faction, denomination or sect refusing to accept the entirety of the Bible are suspect in terms of Christian adherence.

Starting with the Creation account recorded in Genesis, one finds:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning  God*  created the heavens and the earth.
This frequently used Hebrew word – God (אֱלֹהִים,’elohim ) is plural. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural use in Hebrew does NOT indicate either a committee of gods, or God and angels, nor does it indicate the Trinity. The plural form indicates majesty much the same as various secular Kings and Queens use the “royal ‘we’ “.

Then in Genesis 1:2 …but the Spirit of God* was moving over the surface of the water.
Yes, I did take only a selected part of the verse using the phrase “Spirit of God”. Those desiring to check, please read Genesis 1:2 in situ and note the meaning is not changed nor altered.
Spirit of God is a much discussed phrase. The word in Hebrew translated ‘spirit’ in many translations of the Bible, in Hebrew also can be translated ‘wind’ or ‘breath’. In some translations this phrase is translated into English as “wind from God” (the Jerusalem Publication Society in their 1985 translation of the Tanakh – the traditional Jewish rendering of what is termed the “Old Testament” in English language use Christianity – translates the phrase in this manner. But a footnote indicates other translations render the same phrase “Spirit of God”.) Of value in this difference of translation is to be seen in other parts of the Hebrew Tanakh where the same Hebrew word (transliterated ‘ruwach’) refers consistently to the divine spirit that empowers and energizes individuals (see Gen 41:38; Exod 31:3; 35:31; Num 24:2; 1 Sam 10:10; 11:6; 19:20, 23; Ezek 11:24; 2 Chr 15:1; 24:20).

Here now, there is a problem. In the first two verses of the Bible, “God” creates “…the heavens and the earth” (which is no stretch to consider the entire Universe), BUT, the “Spirit of God” is moving over the surface of the earth. The wording suggests, implies, two entities. But Christians and Jews at least superficially agree the God of Creation is One.

In Genesis 3:8, (please read the entire section, Genesis 3:8-19) the “Lord God” walks in the Garden with Adam and Eve. Not only does the “Lord God” walk, but He makes noise – evidenced by Adam and Eve hearing movement of the “Lord God”. A conversation (rather uncomfortable for Adam and Eve) transpires.

Which indicates God was present with Adam and Eve in a physical form. God uttered sounds – it seems – which registered on Adam and Eve as conversation and words.

This record of God is surely not the ‘Spirit of God’ mentioned other places in the Bible. Nor does it seem to be the Creator God who created the Universe.

Switch attention to John 4:23-24 Jesus, in speaking the Samaritan woman, tells her (23) But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. (24) God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
The full account is from verse 4 to 24; at least verse 19-26 to avoid charges of taking the quotation out of context.

Jesus states God – the Father, the first Person of the Trinity – is a Spirit. Not physical. Which is problematic for those who claim God appears in person in various sections of the Old Testament. (See following.)

Genesis 32:24-30 recounts the incident of Jacob (son of Isaac, son of Abraham) ‘wrestling’ with “…a man”. The word in the text (verse 24) leaves no doubt; Jacob and ‘the man’ (as Jacob thought at the time) were in fact flopping about on the ground, pushing each other around and getting sweaty and dirty. When Jacob’s adversary in this decided to leave, ‘the man’ dislocated Jacob’s hip, putting Jacob out of serious action. But Jacob will not let go. Jacob refuses to allow ‘the man’ go free. Jacob demands a blessing.

‘The man’ tells Jacob his name (Jacob’s) name is changed to Israel. The name is a play on words in Hebrew and means – at least in one form – “Strives with God”. At this point, Jacob demands to know ‘the man’s’ name; One could interpret this question of Jacob as “Who (in the world) ARE you?”

‘The man’ refuses to give his name – other than the above- but does bless Jacob and leaves. Jacob names the place of the encounter “Penuel” literally meaning “Face of God”, and explained “Certainly I have seen God face to face and have survived.”

So either Jacob met God face to face (and hand to hand), or ‘the man’ lied to Jacob and Jacob was in error. Or the Bible was made up much later and fraudulent. Take your pick.

As a Christian, one must presume the Bible is correct and accurate in the records of what participants saw, did and understood.

However, this appearance of God does not agree with the appearance of God in Genesis 1:1. This was apparently a man. A human being. (The text gives no hint of Jacob wrestling and talking with anything else.) However, this cannot be the First Person of the Trinity according to Jesus’ statement in the Gospel of John.

This also applies to several other sections of the Old Testament. Specifically Judges 13, where the ‘messenger of the Lord’ appears to Manoah and wife. The messenger announces the birth of Samson (not yet identified by name) to the yet infertile couple. Later, Manoah tells his wife (Judges 13:22) “We will certainly die, because we have seen a supernatural being!” This verse is translated And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. This from the KJV. The word translated ‘God’ is ‘elohim’ and can be translated into English in various ways, all dealing with supernatural beings; most commonly “God”.

One is reminded of the statement made to Moses on the mountain in Exodus 33:20 “You cannot see my face, for no one can see me and live.” Other passages that teach this are Deut 4:33, 5:24, 26; Judg 6:22, 13:22, and Isa 6:5. Manoah has the idea that he will die, having seen God.

Probably the over-riding teaching of the idea of the Trinity is Jesus claiming to be God. Either Jesus is telling the truth, or He is not.

If Jesus is telling the truth, the discussion is over.

If Jesus is not telling the truth, then Jesus is in the same category as those who claim to be Napoleon or a chocolate cream pie. Or the text is so contaminated by additions, edits and fabrications the whole fabric of Scripture is useless.

On a sidenote, but related, those who claim to worship God yet question the authenticity of the Bible are very curious. Claiming to believe in God, an Infinite, Omnipotent and Omniscient being and simultaneously thinking He fails or is incompetent to preserve His message to mankind is self-contradictory. Either God keeps what He claims to be His message as He intended, or He is less than omnipotent and omniscient.

John 10 (22-39) Jesus claims to be God. In a confrontation with the Jewish leaders, Jesus announces (verse 30) “…The Father and I  are one.” The NET has a foot note on this verse and word ‘one’ as follows: The phrase ἕν ἐσμεν ({en esmen) is a significant assertion with trinitarian implications. ἕν is neuter, not masculine, so the assertion is not that Jesus and the Father are one person, but one “thing.” Identity of the two persons is not what is asserted, but essential unity (unity of essence). (Provided by bible.org)

This is NOT one single person, not the same person, not the same purpose or goal, but the same essence. To spell it out, the essence is Divinity.

In John 8:57-59 Jesus is hounded by the Judeans (Jewish people in Jerusalem at the time), challenging Jesus’ claim of elating Abraham by stating Jesus is too young; Jesus replies “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am! “ The term “I am” is a direct quote from Exodus 3:14 and is therefore Jesus statement He is God. If anyone doubts this, the next verse removes all doubt: Then they [the Judeans] picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area.

The Judeans took Jesus’ statement as claim to Godhood and were going to stone Jesus for blasphemy. Please note Jesus ‘hid himself’, while speaking to a group of people who were in the process of stoning Him to death. Harry Houdini couldn’t do that without some preparation and equipment.

In Matthew 16 (verses 13 to 20) Jesus asks His disciples their opinion or belief as to Jesus’ true identity. Peter answered (verse 16) You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Rather than deny or correct Peter’s bold statement, Jesus tells Peter You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!

Note in Hebrew usage, the term “… son of …” was an idiomatic phrase meaning ‘the same as’ (similar to the modern English idiom of ‘chip off the old block’) and does not denote family or genetic relationship. The missionary and partner of Paul “Barnabas” means “son of Encouragement”. Not that Barnabas’ daddy was named ‘Encouragement’, but that Barnabas was a great encouragement to other Christians. When Peter identified Jesus as ‘Son of the Living God’ Peter is saying Jesus IS the Living God.

It is interesting to note that while Jesus is accepting Peter’s recognition of Jesus as God, Jesus is simultaneously speaking of ‘my Father’. Either Jesus has multiple personalities or Jesus is speaking of the Father as the First Person of the Trinity, with Jesus being the Second Person.

I leave out much. However, what I have presented here is enough information to show the reasoning behind the Trinitarian view of God.

2 Comments

Filed under Bible, Christianity, God

Annual Report for 2015

https://oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com/2015/annual-report/

Here’s what the blog and I did in 2015.  Tell your friends.  Tell your acquaintances.  Tell everybody.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Of Hardball Ammunition, Specifications and Duplications

As it is the quietly assumed standard ammunition of .45 ACP semi-automatic pistols, my general purpose reload for the caliber is what is commonly known as ‘hardball’. The rather ordinary 230 grain, fully jacketed, round nose bullet at about 850 feet per second muzzle velocity. Not as easy as I thought.

Short note: This ammunition is referred to as ‘hardball’ for two reasons. It is fully jacketed, common to all military cartridges, handgun, rifle and machine-gun. Also, in the case of the .45 handgun, the bullet is ’round-nosed’, nearly spherical in shape and reminds one – with a bit of imagination – of the small ‘hard’ ball used in baseball. This design is not particularly ferocious; designed not to expand on contact with any target. The U. S. Armed Forces – and other armed forces – refers to the ammunition as ‘ball’ ammunition. This derives from the muzzle loading days when ammunition was in fact loose balls to fit the arm and loose black powder. The modern term ‘ball’ means the projectile is, other than possessed of velocity, inert; opposed to tracer ammunition (which leaves a light trail), incendiary (to start fires), armor piercing or blank. Enough.

According to “Department of the Army Technical Manual (TM) 43-0001-27 Army Ammunition Data Sheets Small Caliber Ammunition FSC 1305, dated April 1994”, the “Cartridge, Caliber .45, Ball, 1911” the projectile weight is not listed, but the velocity is given as 885 +/- 25 fps. The manual also lists the propellent as “SR 7970, (weight) 5 gr”.

I was under the impression I had been loading a proper duplication load. My own ‘stand by’ reload is 5.2 grains of W231 powder. Then I tested a new (to me) pistol and the velocity came up short. Curious, I decided to chronograph test the same load in five other pistols in .45 ACP. (They are all examples of the Browning designed, Colt built ‘Government Model’.) All six pistols have nominal five inch barrels.

The six pistols gave ten-shot averages of 764.9, 754.6, 754.5, 747.4, 742.4, 742.0. The average of these is 750.9. This is roughly 135 fps shy of the specified velocity. The good news is there’s about 22 fps difference between the highest and lowest average velocities. So the loading is fairly consistent in these six pistols.

Looking in various reloading manuals, very few loads are listed which will in fact duplicate the standard .45 ‘hardball’ load. My usual powders for handguns do not appear to push the projectile to the specified velocity. Jumping back to the specifications in the TM, the minimum velocity is 860 fps (885 minus 25 fps)

However, in the Speer Loading Manual #14, I find some information that indicates I may be able to duplicate the load. To make things better, the powder is one I have in my inventory: Power Pistol. In fact, a ‘maximum’ load is not required, even better. Time to load up some test loads again.

Returning from the range I bear good news. I have a valid ‘hardball equivalent loading which less than a ‘maximum’ charge. I chronographed the shots fired and the results bear out my research.

Using regular Winchester (nickeled) commercial brass, a (in this case Winchester) Large Pistol primer, a 230 grain FMJ bullet and the charge of 7.2 grains of Power Pistol gunpowder; the projectile registers 878 feet per second with the chronograph 15 feet from the muzzle. This charge is about half a grain of powder less than maximum recommended; so it isn’t on the ragged edge of destruction. It is not a relaxing and serene load to shoot, the report is impressive and the recoil is fatiguing over time.

If factory “hardball” seems a bit ‘harsh’ to shoot, you will not like this load any better. (It is manly, however!)

WARNING: This load was done by me, at my reloading equipment and scale. Then it was fired in my pistol. YOUR loading technique, YOUR reloading equipment, YOUR scale and YOUR pistol ARE DIFFERENT! Please be cautious should you decide to duplicate my work. Get solid information from a reputable loading manual and begin with minimal charges. Work up to the velocity desired without exceeding the recommendations of the reputable loading manual. Use only in well maintained firearms designed for use with full charge .45 ACP ammunition.
SINCE I’M NOT IN CONTROL OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS IN YOUR WORLD, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY MISHAPS, DAMAGE OR FRUSTRATION ON YOUR PART.

And double check the charge loads with the manual.

9 Comments

Filed under Firearms and their use, Uncategorized

Doctor Carson is Right.

The only answer to mass murders and personal violence is active resistance.

Why do a number of persons – victims – stand by and allow mass murderers to kill others and the victim waiting in line to be killed?

Here’s a hint: It is not ‘human nature’. Humans have always been defensive and responsible for their own safety. However, in the last sixty plus years, U. S. citizens have been brainwashed with the message of “don’t resist, don’t fight back”. Initially, the idea was ‘property isn’t as valuable as human life’. From this, the idea of not resisting was emphasized.

Somewhere in this – I’m not sure of the specific moment – the idea that because your property was being stolen, the thief’s life was more important than the property involved. This functionally became the concept the thief’s ‘right’ to steal your property was more important than your ‘right’ to keep it.

It has been ruled by courts a ‘fleeing felon’, not presenting an immediate threat can not be countered with deadly force. This broad rule ignores the specific cases where a ‘fleeing felon’ has gone on to either immediately or with some time lapse commit other felonies, including personal attacks of a violent nature to include rape and murder.

Some states have gone so far as passing laws requiring the victim ‘retreat’ and not offer a defense of any form until they are physically unable to retreat further. The last possible moment is not a good time to begin a defense. But the ‘must retreat’ laws require this conduct. Of course, many of those same states do everything possible to remove firearms from non-felonious citizens. This furthers the pro-criminal stance of the politicians involved.

When the citizenry is prevented from self-defense, the only alternative is for the ‘government’ – usually in the form of police – to provide ‘defense’. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in several cases, no police department can be expected to protect all citizens at all times, nor can they be reasonably expected to provide such service. When one realizes the average time for a response to a “911” call reporting deadly violence is several minutes – presuming anyone sees the crime being committed or the victim is able to place such a call – any thinking person should realize the individual is alone and can depend only on themselves for assistance or defense.

Please don’t misquote this as an attack on police officers or even police departments. The individual officer(s) will respond to such calls as quickly as possible. However, a call to 911 for help goes to a response call center, is evaluated (to separate non-emergencies from actual emergencies and fraudulent calls from honest calls), then passed onto the officer(s) assigned to ‘handle’ the request. The officer(s) then must physically travel to the scene of the request and gain entry to the immediate location. This all takes time. Again, this presumes a help call can even be made.

Three minutes could be a very long time for a college aged woman being sexually assaulted by four men. It could be a very long time for a college aged man being sexually assaulted by four men. (If you don’t feel three minutes – picked at random by your humble correspondent and deriving from no particular information – try holding your breath for three minutes and see.)

Now this concept and doctrine is coming back to present itself as more confident felons preying on the public.

Mass murderers should not be encouraged and abetted by politicians seeking more power for the government, either state or federal.

The only real world defense is that provided by the targeted victims. Denying a victim the ability to defend from a predatory criminal is abetting the predatory criminal. That is the answer, not more idiotic ‘gun control’.

One last thought. The stupidity of ‘Gun Control’ is based on the rather silly view that ‘guns’ are the essence of the problem. Allow me to present some reality: an inanimate object does not influence human thought. No artifact can engender evil in the mind of anyone. The evil is engendered within the mind and will of the person seeking to commit evil. Laws that deal with inanimate objects rather than evil are doomed to fail.

Unless the actual goal is to remove from honest people the ability to resist a dictatorial government.

2 Comments

Filed under Civilization, Firearms and their use, General Idiocy, Idiot Politicians