Lock and Load, the black helicopters are coming.

Who knew how great a difference 3 years could make? 

In 2015 at a rally in Anderson, South Carolina, then candidate Trump made the following statement.  “You know, the president is thinking about signing an executive order where he wants to take your guns away. You hear this one? This is the new. Not gonna happen. That won’t happen. But that’s a tough one, I think that’s a tough one for him to do when you actually have the Second Amendment”.  Candidate Trump was speaking about President Obama. 

In 2018 President Trump said, “I like taking the guns early like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,”.   Take the guns first, go through due process second.”  He shared this at a meeting with legislators about school safety and gun violence.

3 years ago, Trump was making an implication to spread fear and anxiety among gun owners and supporters of the 2nd amendment.  He was speaking about comments that President Obama had made concerning any type of gun control, following other mass shootings.


Here is what 44 said.  “Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this. Now we have a different tradition. We have a Second Amendment. We have historically respected gun rights. I respect gun rights. But the idea that, for example, we couldn’t even get a background check bill in, to make sure that if you’re going to buy a weapon you have to actually go through a fairly rigorous process so that we know who you are, so that you can’t just walk up to a store and buy a semi-automatic weapon. It makes no sense.”  Obama also said, “Well, in fact, typically right after Newtown happened, for example, gun sales shot up. And ammunition shot up. And each time that these events occur, ironically, gun manufacturers make out like bandits, partly because of this fear that’s churned up that the federal government and the black helicopters are all coming to get your guns. And part of my argument is that it is important for folks to understand how hunting and sportsmanship around firearms is really important to a lot of people. And it’s part of how they grew up. Part of the bonding they had with their dad. It evokes all kinds of memories and traditions. And I think you have to be respectful of that.


The question is just, is there a way of accommodating that legitimate set of traditions with some common sense stuff that prevents a 21-year-old who is angry about something or confused about something, or is racist or is deranged, from going into a gun store and suddenly is packing, and can do enormous harm. And that is not something that we have ever fully come to terms with. Unfortunately, the grip of the NRA on Congress is extremely strong. I don’t foresee any legislative action being taken in this Congress. And I don’t foresee any real action being taken until the American public feels a sufficient sense of urgency and they say to themselves, “This is not normal. This is something that we can change, and we’re going to change it.” And if you don’t have that kind of public and voter pressure, then it’s not going to change from the inside.”


I am willing to take each of these men at their words as they speak for themselves.  Obama says we need to exercise some common-sense restraint and that change must come from public pressure on Congress.  He also thinks more stringent background checks would be a good start.  His attempt to implement such checks failed in a Congress which, like now, is subject to the extremely strong grip of the NRA.  President Trump, on the other hand, just says straight up, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” 


I own guns and associate with people who own guns and people who abhor gun ownership.  I think my gun owner friends who share their view that their guns have been subject to immediate confiscation for decades and they are waiting for the black helicopters to show up is ridiculous.  Neither do I adhere to the view that all weapons are evil and should be destroyed. 


Obama never asked us to surrender our weapons nor threatened to confiscate them.  Trump has personally advocated just such a program of confiscation. 

Do you think the U.S. is a nation of law or tyranny?  Is it acceptable for the President of the United States to effectively deny his oath of office? 


Whaduyathink?

Arm 'em up!!

The following is from Donald J Trump’s twitter account.  You may have heard of him.  He is currently the President of the United States.  Read the tweet and then let me run some thoughts by you.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump

More

Armed Educators (and trusted people who work within a school) love our students and will protect them. Very smart people. Must be firearms adept & have annual training. Should get yearly bonus. Shootings will not happen again - a big & very inexpensive deterrent. Up to States.

10:54 AM - 24 Feb 2018

Ok, the first sentence is not something over which I will quibble.  I assume unarmed educators and trusted people within a school also love and protect out children.  They have done so in each instance of a mass school shooting.

This firearm adept thing is a horse of a different color.  To be adept is to be skilled/proficient.  Unless you go to the range regularly you will not be adept with regards to use of a firearm.  Marksmanship is a frangible skill.  It requires regular dedicated practice.  You may know how to clean, point, and fire a weapon.  That does not make you adept.  I am not even going to address the skills required to manage a live fire zone which includes innocent unarmed bystanders.

These armed educators and trusted people who work within a school must have annual training.  If annual training is all you are providing to people wielding weapons in schools, you are guaranteeing failure.  There will be physical security issues with regards to weapons.  There will be accidental discharges.  There will be improper unauthorized use of force.

According to POTUS’ tweet “Shootings will not happen again-…”.  I will type this very slowly, so you can understand.  As long as weapons are available with virtually no oversight with regard to their acquisition the shootings will continue.  The difference is the teacher will be the first person shot if an active shooter has reason to believe they are armed. 

According to 45 the arming of educators and trusted people who work within a school will be “a big & very inexpensive deterrent.”.  No doubt it will be big.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are approximately 2.4 million primary and secondary teacher positions in the U.S.  For the purposes of this demonstration I will not count the “trusted people who work within a school”.  So, we start with 2.4 million teachers.  Let’s eliminate 1/2 of them as either unqualified and/or unwilling to bear arms.  That leaves us with 1.2 million who need to be equipped and trained.  A decent 9mm magazine fed semiautomatic pistol can run you anywhere from $250-$400.  So, let us say the average cost is $325.  This equates to $390,000,000 to provide a pistol to each teacher to be armed.  Of course, a pistol without ammunition is a rock/stick.  I will assume 208 rounds annually to maintain proficiency and tactical readiness.  This leads to a cost of about $80 per teacher to be armed, so there’s about $96,000,000.  If there is only 1 training session per armed teacher annually and each teacher can train without an instructor, the most conservative estimate I can possibly suggest is $15/teacher for $36,000,000.  The cost of equipping the teachers to be armed with a pistol was estimated at $390,000,000.  Assuming every teacher can maintain their weapon in a serviceable fashion forever and retiring teachers supply new teachers with their weapons then this is a 1-time cost.  Ammunition and training are annual costs estimated at $132,000,000.  The first year would run about $510,000,000, about ½ billion.  For whom is this inexpensive, especially considering the recent tax cut contributing to a decrease in revenue and increase in borrowing and deficit spending?

However, to be honest, Trump does say this would be borne by the States, so there should be no federal economic affect.  I do wonder if the feds will offer some type of liability insurance for states or school districts at a low cost or if that will need to be purchased on the open market.

Whaduyathink?

Due Process

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

More

Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?

Ok, let's take a look at this.  The first sentence is no doubt a fact.  People's lives are shattered and destroyed every day by allegations.  I would expect Donald J Trump to be well aware of this.  He has engaged in this type of behavior for years.  In just the last couple of years he has made unfounded allegations against many people and organizations because they did not support him personally. 

Continuing, "Some are true and some are false".  I understand he is limited by the number of characters Twitter allows, but once an allegation is shown to be true, it is no longer an allegation, it is a fact.  Police reports, photographs, and witness testimony put the lie to denials of no wrong doing.  This chronic denial of an actual truth actually has a name.  It is called Anosognosia.  It is not simply denial of a problem, but the genuine inability to recognize that the problem exists. It is a common consequence of brain injuries, and occurs to varying degrees in such disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and Alzheimer's disease.

Potus then states with regard to the allegations to which he is referring, "Some are old and some are new.   There is no recovery for someone falsely accused - life and career are gone. "  If you are poor and weak this is generally true.  If you are rich and have access and influence it is not so much the case.  This is particularly true in the case/s/ of people with a connection to Potus.  See Joe Arpaio and his pardon for an example.  Furthermore, does a wrong or act of injustice cease to be so merely due to the passage of time?

 Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?  With regard to this statement one must actually know what due process is and when and where it applies.  Due process is fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.  The people who have resigned or been fired in the Trump administration based on claims of domestic abuse have not been denied due process.  They have either resigned because they wish to avoid the application of due process which would also apply to their accusers or been subject to termination policies which do not rise to the demands of a judicial process. 

Whaduyathink?