Monday, May 31, 2021
Sunday, May 30, 2021
Chief Ramirez: Politicizing A Tragedy….
“You’re either with law enforcement or you stand with the fringe and believe that everybody should have a firearm, regardless of their character, capabilities and mental capacity,” Chief Ramirez, Miami Police Department.
Let’s discuss that.
First, while I know that there are a few out there - and I mean that, JUST a few - who believe that EVERYONE should be able to own a gun regardless of the issues Ramirez raises, I can confidently say that the majority of us in the Second Amendment do not. And I will point out, for the umpteenth time, that exclusions for those very individuals ALREADY EXIST WITHIN US LAW AND THE NICS SYSTEM - and the good chief should already know that.
Second, he is once again demonstrating the divide that exists between police chiefs and officers. I’m going to say this yet again: POLICE CHIEFS ARE POLITICAL APPOINTEES WHOSE VIEWS ALIGN WITH THOSE OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT HIRED THEM.
So what do OFFICERS really believe? Once again, I will refer to the largest survey of law enforcement officers (over 15,000) ever conducted:
“1. Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.”
“2. The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.”
“3. About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.”
“4. Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.”
“6. The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.”
“7. More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.”
“8. More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.”
“9. More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.”
There is nothing “fringe” about the views most of us in the Second Amendment community hold. Our views are actually the mainstream of law enforcement OFFICERS as well as indicated by this survey; contrary to what the good chief would have you believe, HE is on the fringe of law enforcement - not us.
I STAND WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
Chiefs, not so much.
BTW, he’s making these pronouncements even though he 1) still hasn’t identified the shooters and 2) has no idea at this time how they obtained the guns they used. That’s called a rush to judgement and politicization of a tragedy, just so we’re clear.
Friday, May 21, 2021
Disenfranchised Voters....
Many voters deal with disenfranchisement. It appears in many different forms.
One such form is the disenfranchisement experienced by conservatives.
Yes, conservatives.
It’s the problem many states have: the rural areas of the states tend to be very conservative, but the big cities consistently override them, enacting laws or forcing them to support programs with their tax dollars with which they strongly disagree.
There is a move in California to allow several counties to secede and form a new, conservative state, several eastern counties in Oregon have voted to join Idaho, and of course many in Texas want to secede from the US entirely to form their own country.
I hope they can somehow get it done, but I’m not holding my breath. The ramifications for those states as they currently exist are far reaching; people like Pelosi, Feinstein, and others would lose a tremendous amount of power, and the affected states would lose seats in congress. The chances that congress would approve such moves - or that the president wouldn’t veto them - are slim at best.
One can always hope.
Double, Double, Boil And Trouble. Standard, That Is....
Of course they’re not going to take action against him, because, on the whole, Chris Cuomo is in lock step with CNN’s agenda and approach to reporting the news.
Protect, Yes. Fortify, Absolutely Not....
Stronger windows/doors, I’m ok with that. Retractable fencing, additional security cameras? OK, there are certainly times when fencing is probably called for; I certainly don’t want the capitol to look like a fortified camp. I remember walking past the presidential palace in Lima, Peru. 12’ wrought iron fencing around the entire perimeter, military controlled entry to the palace, russian .50 caliber machine gun emplacements, snipers on the roof, military QRT just out of sight.
But I draw the line at the creation of yet another federal quick reaction force (QRF) - especially if they are drawn from the National Guard. We already have DOZENS of federal law enforcement and QRT units. We value our freedoms, especially from the government, yet we are one of the most highly policed and surveilled countries in the world. The difference is, the vast majority of it is hidden, unlike other countries that constantly remind their citizens that they are under the watchful eye of the government. The National Guard are under the command and control of the governors of the states of which they are organic. By design, they are only federalized under defined circumstances; the creation of such a force strictly for the capitol undermines the lines that were drawn to insure that they aren’t misused, deployed as pawns for political gain.
I’m sure that there is a ton of pork in this bill as well that has nothing to do with protecting the capitol.
One last thought: I am on board with PROTECTING the capitol. FORTIFYING it is another situation altogether.
Chicago: Let Them Carry....
I’m sharing this, not to politicize a tragic situation, but because the laws that led to this truly anger me.
Chicago has done everything in its power to limit access to firearms by its residents. They have to travel outside of Chicago to lawfully purchase one or practice their shooting skills. A concealed pistol license is nearly impossible to obtain. And yet, gangbangers are able to get firearms with relative ease. There are areas where CPD doesn’t go unless absolutely necessary, not that they - or the numerous gun control laws implemented by Chicago - can actually prevent anything.
It doesn’t matter that, if true, most of the guns obtained by gangbangers come from outside of Illinois. WISHING that wasn’t true doesn’t stop or prevent anything, and with CPD pulling back from troubled areas, primarily communities of color, preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves is nothing short of criminal.
It’s time for Chicago, specifically, and the State of Illinois in general, to recognize that its gun control policies and laws have failed miserably - communities of color are paying the price. THESE ARE RACIST POLICIES, as gun control has been since day one.
Chicago, Illinois, LET YOUR PEOPLE EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)