That's A Lot Of Bullets!

When I read that Janet Napolitano is considering a run for President I cringed. I've not been a fan of her policies but then there are few coming from this administration of which I am a fan.

That being said, I began to wonder about our current debate over gun control and what the actions of the department of Homeland Security would mean to us under a Napolitano presidency.

It seems they have a stockpile of 1.6 billion rounds on ammunition acquired over the past 10 months. They are now ready to acquire 21.6 million more! Do you know how many wars can be fought with that amount? Using numbers from the height of action in Iraq when U.S. soldiers used 5.5 million a month it comes out to be enough for about 30 years.

Even with selling guns to follow the Mexican drug cartels, I should hope we're not selling them the ammunition too!  Nor are we doing much to secure the border thus not needing huge numbers of rounds there.  So what's the deal?

Are they expecting the citizenry to rise up in rebellion?  Is homegrown terrorism vast enough to warrant supplying armies?  Sure there have at times been a shortage of bullets, but that usually comes about when the government makes noises about relieving us of our weapons.

Other than that the reason for such largess escapes me.  Do they fear an invasion?  If so from whom and wouldn't the military be handling it anyway?  Do they think the rag tag militias are suddenly going to band together and take on the government from within?  I know they think they can, but that's where it mostly ends.  Wishful thinking.

It could be for training purposes, but not that many and certainly they don't need hollow points for target practice.

So why? Are they that afraid of us?  Talk about paranoia.  It's usually we the people who are thus accused, not the government.  Just think.  In this time of budgetary constraints, think of the money that could be saved by not stockpiling!

Better yet, think about what a Napolitano presidency would mean.  It's bad enough to relinquish your rights when you have to fly. But to know the weaponry that those who are supposedly there to protect us but are really enforcers of unpopular policy have available to them?

With news like this making the rounds, don't expect attempts at limiting our access to automatic weapons and fistfuls of bullets to get any easier!

Iran To The U.S. ~ Up Yours!

As the world watches, they see the U.S. becoming weaker and weaker.  They know now, after  Secretary of Defense Panetta's testimony, that Obama wasn't glued to his seat as the Benghazi debacle unfolded as he had been with bin Laden.  After all, in this case it was our people under attack.

They also have it confirmed that Hillary was no where to be found.  They also know that she had next to no power, it being held close to the vest in the White House. Being a much traveled super star was no more than that.

For what ever reason, we've decided to make delivery of tanks and fighters plus millions in military aid to Egypt even though their only use for them is against Israel. Turkey at least has a few anti-missile batteries to protect it's already over run borders from Syria.  Which, by the way, continues to disintegrate.  Don't forget about our support of Algeria and Mali in their struggle against terrorists if you can find any.

We have a potential head of the CIA in favor of using drones to attack American citizens on singular discretion without consequence and a potential Secretary of Defense who favors dialog over action when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.

North Korea is threatening us again.  They'd like us to believe their people are dreaming of nuclear attacks against our cities.  The problem with their propaganda video is that the people no doubt do dream of it because they've been so ordered plus no way to know that thinking of the U.S. as their enemy can and should be challenged.

We constantly suffer verbal abuse and contempt from Afghanistan's President Karzai.

Finally, in an attempt to lay some ground work for our new Secretary of State, John Kerry, Vice President Biden has suggested more talks with Iran.  It was one thing when Ahmadinejad refused us, but now the man behind the throne, but now the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei  has sent us packing.  He had this to say, "You take up arms against the nation of Iran and say negotiate or we fire."

We have tried sanctions with no success.  We don't seem to understand governments like Iran's could care less if their people suffer.  Look at North Korea.  Look at Syria.  They all have the same mind set and they all have as their allies pro active partners in Russia and China.

The West worries about Iran's enrichment program but Iran has the right to do just that.  The West also wants Iran to take the first steps of scaling back in return for the easing of sanctions, but without guarantee.

They aren't unlike us holding our ground about the taking away of our rights as in the gun control debate especially since the government seems unwilling to address the whole issue before taking what many see is unjust punitive steps for no concrete gain and unconstitutional at that.

The West is also looking for the U.S. to lead in finding an acceptable solution.  One of these days they will realize it isn't likely to happen.  When you have your enemy against the ropes there is no need to compromise.  Iran knows they have us in just that spot.  Pretending it isn't true and continuing with the same tactic will do nothing more than delay the inevitable ~ Iran will get their weapon.

Then the whole dance will begin again over containment.  Do we have a policy for that? At his hearing for Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel didn't seem to know.  If containment is our policy you might want to hope a greater power is on our side.

Ron Paul's Conflicted View Of War

Twitter was all a twitter when Ron Paul tweeted about  former SEAL and sniper Chris Kyle's death saying, "Chris Kyle's death seems to confirm that 'he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.' Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense."

First, I must agree that treating a former soldier suffering with PTSD  at a firing range doesn't make sense! That doesn't make anyone "anti-gun".  It's just common sense.

That being said, if Mr. Paul were anyone else I doubt such a fuss would have been made but rather dismissed except for the rabid few.  He then went to Facebook to clarify what he meant and didn't do well there either with this,  "Unconstitutional  and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences.  A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies."

Our current President is doing his best to promote a non-violent war policy.  Were it realistic I'd be thrilled.  But it isn't.  In order to have peace no one must to be willing to wage war. You see how well that's working as war, as we speak, is overflowing from the Middle East into North Africa and beyond. Regardless of what Christ, Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. preached, non-violence does not seem to be in the human DNA.

I do understand, however, where Mr. Paul is coming from.  Violence begets violence.  It does.  Just look at the headlines.  I've listened to some veterans saying he is insulting every man and woman who wears the uniform.  I think not. He's decrying war and it's never ending effects.

He is a veteran, he knows about war and he hates it.  I dare say every one of those men and women in uniform also hate it. As should we all.  Not only for what it does to our own people, but also the innocents who are caught up in it through no fault of their own other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That Mr. Kyle  and his friend had their lives snuffed out in such a manner is truly tragic.  It's also tragic that the shooter was also a military man.  It's also tragic that we need men of such character to put their lives on the line for us; that the world is such that it's necessary. Be thankful that we have such men ~ and women.

It's difficult to express what is truly in your heart in 140 characters and perhaps Mr. Paul would have done better rearranging his wording.  I have no doubt his sympathy toward the families of the deceased is genuine.  What he hates is the fact that they are deceased and the reason why is a consequence of war.  I find no fault in that.

Common Sense And The Gun Debate

The gun control debate has some staying power this time out though I doubt there will be much if any change.  Along with that comes typical over reaction.  I've read of at least two incidences where schools were locked down because some one had a nerf gun.  It's pretty difficult to mistake one of the multi-colored excesses for a real weapon unless there is something on the market I've not yet seen.

This morning I read about a 14 year old high school freshman who was suspended for having a wall paper depicting a rifle on his school issued laptop. According to the rules students were not to upload anything deemed threatening.

He didn't seem to think it was threatening.  He likes guns.  He's thinking about one day joining the military and he found a picture he liked on the Internet.  I decided to see if I could find it and I did on a page offering gun themed wall paper.

I found it interesting that the flag is that of the one time Yugoslavia.  Colorful to be sure. Kind of neat wall paper for a 14 year old.

 I browsed a bit more and found two examples with American flags and wondered if the school officials would find them less offensive.  Not that I think any of them realized what the flag on the one that was chosen represented.

But it isn't the flag of course.  It's the rifle.  Isn't it?  It seems to me we're driving ourselves crazy over symbolism and not getting to the crux of the matter which is the type and capacity of said guns not to mention the mental stability of those who have them.

I have no argument with those who don't think assault rifles are a necessary part of the average gun owners life.  Nor  30 round clips.  A regular automatic clip has somewhere between 7 and 10 shots roughly speaking.  I'm not an expert but from what I've seen anyway.  If you can't hit an intruder before you have to change clips it's a pretty good bet he'll get you.  As for those out to mass murder, well...

The argument about the militia reference in the second amendment has been decided by the courts but I dare say the framers of the Constitution hadn't envisioned an automatic rifle of the sort our military uses today.  Rifles back in those days were single shot and weighed a ton. It has always amazed me how bloody our early wars were considering the amount of time it took to ready a weapon.

More than any of the above, however, are the numbers of those weapons already in circulation.  I equate that with the problem we have with illegal immigrants.  They're already here.  The weapons are already out there.  How on earth do you expect to find them when they are legally owned?  Just like what are you going to do with the 11 million illegals already within our borders?

We're finally at least having some discussions about the latter.  Look how long it has taken?  Since the days of Ronald Reagan when he gave those here at that time amnesty.  Yet we did nothing further and here we are again.

I haven't a clue as to what a remedy might be.  I agree with the background checks.  You can limit the size of magazines but that can be circumvented.  You can give "amnesty" to those who already have "assault" weapons but sell no more.  Is the Constitution written broadly enough to allow that?  Should that be revisited?

The fact remains there are millions of guns "out there" and just where is any ones guess. There's a whole lot more to the problem than background checks and banning certain types of weapons.  Until we look at the entire problem, which is complex and wide reaching, and start addressing each segment, it, like so many other difficult tasks, will continue to be kicked down the road.

At the rate we're going with gun violence, however, we won't have to worry about the kids and grand kids inheriting an insurmountable debt.  There won't be any left!

When Power Goes Unchecked

Living in Idaho, it's not unusual to hear rumors about groups wanting to build their own private compounds. One is planned for the county next door though none of the powers that be are taking it seriously.  Besides, as long as they follow the law there is nothing to prevent it.

Their web site suggests Marxists, Socialists, Liberals and establishment Republicans might not find their ideology compatible.  Wow.  Who does that leave other than the fringe?

It goes on to explain what they stand for, how it will be funded, by a gun manufacturer no less with a factory on the grounds, and what the requirements for residents will be.  One that struck me is that every able bodied "Patriot" 13 or older must qualify on an annual basis with a rifle of his or her choice.  They must be able to hit a man-sized target at 100 yards with 7 out of a possible 10 shots.  They must show the same proficiency with a hand gun at 25 yards plus they must maintain one AR15 with at least 5 magazines and 1000 rounds of ammunition.

Now I realize there are a lot of doomsday groups around the country that have similar plans and I trust some where some one is keeping an eye on all this.  It's ambitious to be sure but some 200 people have already submitted down payments.  They plan to accommodate 3500 to 7000 families.

Who, I wonder, would want to live like that? Obviously some. Then I began thinking about how the President, the one person in government we have little recourse against, is openly defying law.  The latest of course are the "recess" appointments of the NLRB and CFPB officials.  The courts have ruled the appointments illegal and ordered those officials to vacate their jobs and the actions they have taken  to be null and void.  Nothing.  Rather like the State Department officials that are still employed after the Benghazi debacle.

When the President has such contempt for not only the Constitution, but the people, the country has a problem. This President has been pushing the envelope for some time now and I don't want to hear that others have done it too. Two wrongs don't make a right.

There has always been conflict among our ruling parties.  I'd like to say governing, but they no longer do that - they rule by any means necessary. This President is out to totally destroy the Republican party and unfortunately the Republicans are too feckless to ward him off. The new regulations coming out for Obamacare are another example of how he is maneuvering health care to a single payer system. More governmental power over our lives for it will destroy the insurance industry.

He and his minions are trying to reshape more than the health care to a single 'payer' (read party) system.  They are trying to make the government a one party system for perpetuity.

I don't think moving behind two layers of walls and fencing and arming myself to the hilt is the answer.  Change has to come from within.  For those who would have it, they had better get with it.  I am not yet to the point where I believe every Democrat ascribes to Progressive extremism.  I see hope when a Marco Rubio will be pragmatic and defy far right extremism.

We need a lot more like him on both sides to keep the one person who is beholden to no one, who suffers no consequence for his actions, in line. The President.  Or he will no longer be.  He will be a Dictator.  Then those fences and walls may look pretty good.