Pleading the 2nd

On October 1st another mass shooting occurred.  Just recently another occurred.  In the near future another will certainly occur.

Mass shooting  of theses types are all criminal acts, perpetrated by criminals, and using guns illegally.   It doesn’t matter how or where the guns came from, nor whether they were stolen, purchased illegally, or even legally.  Using guns in for mass shootings is illegal.

Is there nothing that we can do?  Well given the situation, most people targeted by the shooter were either critically injured or died.  I guess that’s what you do in a “gun free zone.”  You could also attempt to take out the shooter like unarmed Army Veteran Chris Mintz did.  I’d like to think that his heroic actions saved at least a few people by slowing the shooters actions, but ultimately it is very unlikely that an unarmed person will be able to take out a person with a gun.  So without a gun, what we do is get shot.

The 2nd amendment to our US Constitution assures us that we have the right to both keep and bear arms.  To keep means to own,  and to bear means to carry.   The 2nd Amendment means that citizens not only have the right to own guns and they have the right to carry them around with them.  The 2nd amendment was not included to assure that criminals will have access to guns, it is there to make sure that non-criminals will have access to guns to defend themselves. This was reaffirmed as recently as 2008 by the US Supreme Court,

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense

Unfortunately, in last week’s shooting, just like many recent shootings, the rights of people to bear arms in their own defense had sadly been infringed upon.  More sadly their rights were infringed upon by our own government.

The Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 requires each state receiving federal funds to have a state law in effect requiring local educational agencies to expel, for at least one year, any student who is determined to have brought a weapon to school.

In addition, schools are directed to develop policies requiring referral to the criminal justice or juvenile delinquency system for any student who brings a firearm or weapon to school.

And in the case of this latest shooting, someone at the local level made the decision to infringe upon people right to use a gun in self defense.

Under state law, people in Oregon could carry concealed firearms on college campuses like the one where a gunman killed nine people and wounded several others on Thursday. However, Umpqua Community College has been established as a gun-free zone thanks to a loophole in state law that has made every third-level institution in the state almost entirely gun-free.

Would the outcome have been the same if Umpqua Community College were not a gun free zone?  Well it’s possible that the shooter would have chosen not to bring his evil into the college knowing that he’d have likely been shot without ever getting his sick 15 minutes of fame.  It’s possible that a US Army veteran, trained in the use of guns, would have quickly taken out the shooter and not had to rush unarmed at the shooter.  It’s also likely that in a college of that size several people would have chosen to carry guns onto campus, making it very likely that several of the victims would alive today, not dead.

But there were no guns on campus, except those of the crazy shooter, because our government prohibited them.  Not only prohibited, but essentially paid the schools to take away a peoples right to use a gun to defend themselves and others while on campus.   Sounds like a good old fashioned gangsta threat, “yous guys betta do what I says or else…or else you’re gonna lose funding.”

And for the things keep getting worser and worser crowd, while the critically injured victims are still being treated, and the dead are being buried, our President is siding with the criminals by calling for more infringements on our right to keep and bear arms in our own defense.

The residents were barely given time to begin the grieving process when President Obama decided to openly politicize the event in an effort to push his anti-Second Amendment agenda. In July, Obama lamented that he was not able to do more about gun control stating America, “is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun safety laws.”

And apparently he is also lamenting that he is “powerless to prevent another tragedy.”

WTH Mr. President?  Powerless?

Mr. President, the power to fight back against these tragedies lies in the US Constitution, the same Constitution that you are sworn to uphold.  Do your job.  The power is our right to keep and bear arms.

Suitcase Clock

Irving’s police chief announced Wednesday that charges won’t be filed against Ahmed Mohamed, the MacArthur High School freshman arrested Monday after he brought what school officials and police described as a “hoax bomb” on campus.


I built an electronic hobby clock when I was about this kids age, but it wasn’t in a suitcase, it was in a tuna can.  My tuna can clock didn’t alarm anyone.  True, that was pre-9/11, quite a different time, but nobody would have arrested me had I chosen a suitcase over a can.

muslim attitudesSo why the alarm now?  Well because now is post 9/11.  Now is in a nation whose Muslim population is made up of people who, to varying degrees, think suicide bombing in defense of Islam is an option.

Now is a time when common sense would say to a Muslim teenager and his parents, don’t build a clock in a suitcase, just don’t.  You likely are as innocent as Bambi, but don’t build a clock in a suitcase because you’re an Arab looking Muslim and your clock looks like a suitcase bomb which everyone has heard of and not a suitcase clock which nobody has ever heard of.  Parent’s use common sense and teach your children the same.

As for the teacher calling this in to authorities, I can certainly understand their position.  For someone who has never built a clock in either a can or a suitcase it’d be pretty tough to pick out the clock from a bomb.  Try it.  I just snipped this from a Google search.  Quick, which is the clock?suitcase clock

And authorities, maybe you were a little harsh, but I won’t blame you a bit after the Marathon Bombings.

I think this whole thing falls back onto the parents.  Them, sending their Arab looking Muslim kid to school with a suitcase clock was about as dumb as me, a white Christian guy, sending my kid to school with a rope to show his friends a knot he learned called a noose, and how to spell a new word that starts with an “N” and ends with a “double ga er.”  Either situation is asking for trouble and should be avoided.

Devil’s Advocate

So it went down like this, he said, “Let me just play devil’s advocate here for a minute.  Let’s say that a 10 week fetus were just a blob of cells, would you still be against abortion at 10 weeks?”

I said, “How about we don’t just say that, because it’s not even remotely true and we don’t need more people in the world thinking that way. “

Turns out that sometimes when people play devil’s advocate, they really are advocating for the Devil.

In God We Trust

Yes, In God We Trust belongs in America today, just as it did at the founding of our nation.

Now, there are facts and there are Facebook facts.   True facts are those that can be proven true through independent evidence.  Facebook facts are evidently true because there are so many people on Facebook, that everyone you talk to saw the same thing and will back you up on the validity of the Facebook Fact (FBF).  It must be true because it’s on Facebook. ;)

Here’s a couple of those Facebook Facts (FBF) that showed up in my timeline last week.

Rubio igwtEvidently we are supposed to take as fact that “In God We Trust” came to life in 1956 and that Marco Rubio is a nincompoop.   I don’t think either is factual, but given the speed at which false information travels on the internet,  both may already qualify as FBF.

One commenter on that timeline image even added their own twist to this FBF.

I bet his crazy ass father taught him that. The only reference is in the Declaration of Independence that refers to “Nature’s God” and the “laws of nature.”

Now I don’t know Marco Rubio, so he may be a fatuous nincompoop with a crazy ass father(don’t really think so), but I believe him to be correct in his sentiment that trust in God is foundational to out nation.  As for the words “In God We Trust” as a slogan and or motto here are a few real facts:


  • In 1956 congress did actually pass a law declaring “In God We Trust” as our national motto, but trust in God didn’t suddenly poof into existence in 1956.
  • During the 1860’s the US was minting coins with the inscription “In God We Trust”  I don’t know if it a motto, a slogan, or what, but by my crude math skills I put the 1860’s almost 100 years before 1956.
  • In 1814 Francis Scott Key wrote a poem while held as a prisoner by the British during the War of 1812.  His poem contained the line, “And this be our motto: ‘In God is our Trust.”   That poem, set to music is now know as the Star Spangled Banner.   Again with crude math 1956 was some 150 years later.

Clearly trust in God as a part of our nation predates 1956 and in reality goes back to the very foundation of our nation.  When the commenter mentions our Declaration of Independence they were ever so close to proving Marco Rubio true, they just were looking at the wrong end of the Declaration.

In opposition to the King of England our Declaration of Independence declared these important things,

  • that we would no longer be governed by England
  • that people had inalienable rights bestowed upon them by their Creator, not government.
  • that we were starting our own government.

Our Declaration was a hugely important document in it’s time, as well as now.  Anyone signing the Declaration would have been hung by the British as traitors had they been caught.  I’ve read that 5 signers were actually caught, tortured and subsequently died, but that may just be a FBF.

So what made our nation’s founders believe that they had a chance in heck of being successful in their endeavor of creating the United States?  Well it’s all there in that last sentence of the Declaration,

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

In order to break from England and start this new nation called the United States, our founders mutually pledged to each other: their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor, but most importantly they did so “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence .”   They knew that for this nation to succeed they needed to rely on each other and firmly rely on the protection of divine Providence or in other words they had a complete trust in God’s will.

“firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence” = Trust in God

“In God we Trust” was most certainly not a motto dreamt up by Christian zealots in the 1950s’ or 1860’s or whatever era, trust in God was part of our nation before we were a nation.  In God We Trust was not some catchy phrase to our founding fathers, it was what they did, they trusted in God.

Motto, slogan, or whatever, I don’t think anything could be more “American” than Trust in God.