So word is out today that within the Obama budget (or lack thereof) is a severe cut in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program- also known as the Armed Pilots program.
Having our flight deck officers armed and trained is essential during a time of terrorism. I flew back to Idaho the day before 9-11-01 and was appalled to see that the cockpit door was open on my flight, with no security whatsoever.That has not happened on any subsequent flights, now with armed officers, at least I feel secure enough to duck if necessary.
This administration is bizarre in its function. First out of the box they tried to cut off the supply of brass for reloading shells. They have often tried to sneak in gun control legislation in the fine print of completely unrelated bills. Now they want to cut the pilot's program so deeply that, according to other bloggers, it would essentially destroy the program. They simply hate guns. They hate the people of America having access to any guns. They want us disarmed.
And yet the "Fast and Furious" scandal showed that they were more than happy to give guns to the Mexican cartels. What's the deal? It's ok to arm criminals, but not ok to have citizens armed for protection? Something needs to give here. This hypocritical stance on guns needs to be stopped in its tracks.
The right to keep and bear arms is being whittled away. The pilot's right to protect themselves is at stake. Let's not let them win!
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun control. Show all posts
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Gun Owners vs Government
I see this morning that Mr O is working on two new proposals to restrict guns again. Government seems to have difficulty with understanding the problem with gun control. So here is my take on the subject:
1. Very few shootings can be stopped with gun control. The Virginia Tech massacre a few years ago could have been stopped with the right kind of background checks- but there is still a hole in that procedure. Mental illness is not always tracked in a manner that gets into any of the background check systems. Unless a judge orders the person to be fingerprinted, no one will ever know about the problem. And thus they will get their grubby little paws on guns to kill people. You can "tighten up" the background checks, as in one of the current proposals by Mr. O, but likely it will only serve to prevent law abiding people from owning guns.
Case in point: I personally know a gentleman who had one misdemeanor on his record. He's not an axe murderer, he's a normal guy who loves to fish and hunt. And misdemeanors, especially traffic ones, do not count toward blocking gun ownership. Due to some sort of snaffu, it shows up as a flag to prevent him from purchasing a gun. He has done everything to try to get it changed, expunged, fixed, but the ATF and government groups have blocked him at every turn. His attorney has spent years trying to remedy the mistake to no avail. Would better record checks help us or hurt us? I think the latter.
2. Mr O has always been a backdoor legislator- in other words he is always trying legislation that comes in under the guise of something else. Another proposal is to ban certain magazine clips for a specific type of weapon. "Tightening" up the systems for ammunition is one way to destroy the ability of normal people to enjoy their guns.
When Mr O took office, the price of ammunition skyrocketed. The government stopped the military from selling off their used brass, which put a huge crimp (pardon the pun) in affordable ammunition. Further plans to mess with ammunition is a perfect way to push the price up so high that ordinary people will struggle to buy any ammo at all. It will also push the underground industry to new levels.
The thing that people don't understand is that the underground weapons trade is where the majority of death comes from. Gang violence and cartel violence does not come from legal gun trades- they come from a vast network of weapons traffickers that operate all over the globe. They also come from back alley gun sales, not from your local Cabela's. So don't be fooled by government ideas to "tighten" things up. There is an ulterior motive.
I am a firm believer in gun ownership- I grew up with guns in our home (loaded ones). We had a rifle range in the workshop of my Dad's business. I've never shot myself or a loved one. I would use it to defend myself or my family from someone with the intent to harm us. Which is the point of gun ownership in the first place: hunting for food, and defending your lives. Not everyone should shoot nor use a gun- some people aren't emotionally solid enough or physically able to handle one. But for those of us who are...we will stand against any moves of the government to delete our right to keep and bear arms.
1. Very few shootings can be stopped with gun control. The Virginia Tech massacre a few years ago could have been stopped with the right kind of background checks- but there is still a hole in that procedure. Mental illness is not always tracked in a manner that gets into any of the background check systems. Unless a judge orders the person to be fingerprinted, no one will ever know about the problem. And thus they will get their grubby little paws on guns to kill people. You can "tighten up" the background checks, as in one of the current proposals by Mr. O, but likely it will only serve to prevent law abiding people from owning guns.
Case in point: I personally know a gentleman who had one misdemeanor on his record. He's not an axe murderer, he's a normal guy who loves to fish and hunt. And misdemeanors, especially traffic ones, do not count toward blocking gun ownership. Due to some sort of snaffu, it shows up as a flag to prevent him from purchasing a gun. He has done everything to try to get it changed, expunged, fixed, but the ATF and government groups have blocked him at every turn. His attorney has spent years trying to remedy the mistake to no avail. Would better record checks help us or hurt us? I think the latter.
2. Mr O has always been a backdoor legislator- in other words he is always trying legislation that comes in under the guise of something else. Another proposal is to ban certain magazine clips for a specific type of weapon. "Tightening" up the systems for ammunition is one way to destroy the ability of normal people to enjoy their guns.
When Mr O took office, the price of ammunition skyrocketed. The government stopped the military from selling off their used brass, which put a huge crimp (pardon the pun) in affordable ammunition. Further plans to mess with ammunition is a perfect way to push the price up so high that ordinary people will struggle to buy any ammo at all. It will also push the underground industry to new levels.
The thing that people don't understand is that the underground weapons trade is where the majority of death comes from. Gang violence and cartel violence does not come from legal gun trades- they come from a vast network of weapons traffickers that operate all over the globe. They also come from back alley gun sales, not from your local Cabela's. So don't be fooled by government ideas to "tighten" things up. There is an ulterior motive.
I am a firm believer in gun ownership- I grew up with guns in our home (loaded ones). We had a rifle range in the workshop of my Dad's business. I've never shot myself or a loved one. I would use it to defend myself or my family from someone with the intent to harm us. Which is the point of gun ownership in the first place: hunting for food, and defending your lives. Not everyone should shoot nor use a gun- some people aren't emotionally solid enough or physically able to handle one. But for those of us who are...we will stand against any moves of the government to delete our right to keep and bear arms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
