Ambushed: A Comparison

If you were in a war and found yourself in an ambush situation, there are a few things you would rely heavily on to stay alive. 

Movement- A stationary target soon becomes a dead target.

Return fire- Take every opportunity to shoot back. If you can eliminate the threat, you don't die.

Firepower- Pull out the biggest, meanest weapon you have. Don't rely on a .45 when you have an M16.

Ammunition- If you don't have enough ammunition, you may as well not have a gun.

Support- If you have buddies around you or even better, air support to drop the big guns on them, use them.

Training/Intelligence- The skills you have been taught and as much information as you can find about the current situation.

Tenacity- Use every skill and trick that you know to keep your enemy off balance and on the run.

Perseverance- Never give up.

If you were to employ all of these, together, you would stand a decent chance of not only surviving, but winning your battle. You could also be defeated. If you take that attitude into a battle, however, you have given yourself a huge setback right from the start. General Eisenhower once said, "Pessimism never won any battle". If you don't think you can win, why are you there in the first place? Knowing that you may die, but fighting like you have to win, means the battle is worth fighting. If a battle is worth fighting, then it's worth fighting to the finish and fighting to win. 

We need lawmakers who understand that this can apply to any battle they face, not just one where bad guys are trying to shoot you with an AK-47. How does this apply to congress? 

Movement. Don't just stand still and become complacent. The status quo will get nothing done. Being conservative does not, as some would have you believe, mean fighting change. If you want to define so simply, it means fighting against progressives and their freedom destroying ideals and fighting for those freedoms that are God given and constitutionally protected. They need to get busy. Don't just stand there and watch our country fall further into the post-constitutional soft tyranny that it is rapidly becoming. We aren't paying them to hold the carpet down in congress, we are paying them to work, for us. 

Return fire. When we are in the minority, it seems to become the modus operendi to just try and rely on "no" votes. News flash, when you are in the minority, "no" won't do it. They need to fire back with every tool they have. Create useful legislation. Put people's feet to the fire by bringing votes to the floor. Work behind the scenes in committees. Use the power that they have, and they have many. Stand in front of every camera that presents itself and get the message out to the public. Let the public join the fight in contacting their representatives. There are countless ways to fight back, but occasionally pointing the legislative "weapons" that they possess will do nothing unless they pull the trigger!

Firepower. Pull out the big guns, don't just sit around occasionally firing a cap gun. We have a few Senators that are not afraid to make some noise in this manner, far too few. When Rand Paul stood up and filibustered for half a day, it made noise, a lot of noise. He was cheered wildly from one side and attacked viciously from the other. He was noticed, to say the least. When Ted Cruz stands up and speaks his mind, people know it. When he challenged Dianne Feinstein over the second amendment, she was visibly upset. Although I'm sure she has spoken, I can't remember very much news about her since that happened. This was a freshman Senator taking on an establishment Senator that has been in office for over twenty years. He was armed to the teeth when he did that. A constitutional lawyer who argued the Heller decision before the Supreme Court taking on a lifetime politician who doesn't know the difference between a handgun and a rifle. These and a few others are not afraid to stand up and speak for what is right, regardless of any perceived consequences they may incur. We need more who will use the power that they have been given to do what the people expect of them.

Ammunition. Occasionally one will stand up and fire a shot off. Then the progressive machines throws a fusillade back at them and they slink back behind their desk and start worrying about re-election. What they need to do is re-load! Facts are deadly to the left. There is a never-ending supply of facts on most of the issues that we face, from gun control to health care to environmental issues. Nothing irritates me more that when some well-meaning person uses the phrase in a gun control debate, "guns don't kill people...", and then have not mush else to say. They are right in that statement, but it is useless by itself. There is an almost unlimited amount of data surrounding this issue. Why won't they use them? John Lott has written several extremely useful books on the subject. He is not alone. We need to get these facts into the fight. This issue is only one of the many examples where this is true.

Support. When Rand Paul filibustered, he started out alone. When he finished, it was standing room only, not just in the Senate chambers, but around the country. He had people like Cruz and Lee and dozens of others take stretches of his time to not only give him a breather, but also to throw a few volleys of their own. We sometimes see one of them reach out to the public for assistance on various issues, petitions, rallies and the like. We need to see them call for support from experts on issues, from each other and from the general public more often. Ronald Reagan reached out to the public often, with great success. One Senator doesn't stand much of a chance against the other ninety-nine. But one Senator with a great idea who can enunciate that to his comrades and to the millions of constituents across the country can soon amass an undefeatable force. They need to be willing to not only ask for help, but accept it when offered. 

Training/Intelligence. I keep using Ted Cruz as an example because he is such a good one. He is an expert in constitutional law. I suspect he and many of our representatives were schooled in debate. We have doctors, lawyers, military, businessmen and who knows what other areas of expertise representing us in Washington. All have a unique set of qualifications and educational experiences. Yet when they get there, most seem to forget that and just engage in verbal jousting. This is falling into the trap and the method of the progressives. They need to use what they know to take the fight to them, not let the other side use what they know to accomplish this endless cycle of derision while they pass unconstitutional liberty-killing laws behind our backs. They also have an unlimited network that can keep them up to speed on what is going on. They need to use this intelligence. How often do we here, "I don't know" when asked a question on an issue? They should be well versed on the issues and able to speak clearly about them. Ignorance is no excuse.

Tenacity. This is a tactic where conservatives could learn a thing or two from progressives. If the left loses a vote, they bring another. If that fails, they use some administrative agency or executive order. If that fails, they bring a lawsuit. If that fails, they do it anyway. Meanwhile, the progressive mouthpieces, like Jackson, Sharpton, Moore, Gore and the media never stop spewing rhetoric and shouting down their opponents. The progressives have been working hard at turning this country upside down since the late 1800's, and they have made huge strides in doing so. Those of us who wish to see the country returned to the guiding principles that the founding fathers put into place have been complacent, at best, collectively. We too often think the next election or next vote can turn things around. Remember how long long it has taken the progressives to get us into this position, it will probably take us that long to get it back if we ever get ourselves together. We cannot sit back and hope something changes. We have to change it and we have to be ever vigilant as we do so. The progressive never stops attacking, we have to have that mentality if things are to be changed.

Perseverance. Once we get all of that together, we cannot stop, ever. If this country is ever to remain what it was founded to be, we have to be constantly on guard. Evil isn't going away any time soon, and until it does, we have to guard against it. We, those who love and remember why we exist as a nation, are not just the best hope, we are the only hope. We need to return to, depend on and defend those principles that made America the great nation that it was and can be again. We need leaders, from among us, that will stand for these ideals.

Cicero once said:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

Our biggest battle for the survival of this nation has not and will not be fought on the battlefields of the world, it has been and will continue to be fought in the halls and chambers of our houses of government. On every level from school boards to city councils to the houses of congress in Washington DC. We cannot lose this battle.

Senator Chris Murphy, Bully

Senator Chris Murphy hates the NRA. This is my determination.  He has released no less than seven press releases concerning the NRA since his swearing in in January. Some of his words to describe them include bizarre, unhinged, depraved, extreme and out of touch[1]. He further believes that they show a "disregard for public safety" and endanger law enforcement by supporting a bill in Indiana that was passed by an overwhelming majority and had support from numerous law enforcement agencies. His reasons for non-support was in direct opposition of Governor Mitch Daniels, who said:

"[C]ontrary to some impressions, the bill strengthens the protection of Indiana law enforcement officers by narrowing the situations in which someone would be justified in using force against them." Governor Daniels went on to explain, "So as a matter of law, law enforcement officers will be better protected than before, not less so."[2]

He, being a senator from Connecticut, was no doubt affected by the Sandy Hook Elementary killings. He has also released nine press releases regarding this incident or things directly related to this incident, such as Obama's statements on gun violence in general. I am not condemning the man for his desire to prevent things like that from happening again.

One of his most recent press releases concerns a letter[3] he wrote to Brian France, Chairman and CEO of NASCAR. He wrote a letter in regards to NASCAR's decision to partner with the NRA in having them be the primary sponsor for the upcoming race at Texas Motor Speedway. The event will be known as the NRA 500. In the letter, he repeatedly accuses NASCAR of inserting itself into political debate. Also showing itself to be an ally of the NRA in the current gun debate. He also accuses them of taking sides against the families in Newtown tragedy. He rattles of a series of statements intended to make the NRA look exactly as he sees them, evil. He asserts that NASCAR has historically been careful not to insert itself, and its hard-earned good reputation, into political and legislative fights.

Remember when NASCAR's top tier changed its name to the Nextel/Sprint Cup? Remember what it was called before that? The Winston cup. Winston as in RJ Reynolds flagship brand of cigarettes. RJR was the primary sponsor for NASCAR from 1970 until 2003. Thirty three years of sponsorship that resulted directly from the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1971. If you'll recall, tobacco companies and the government were in a virtual war for much of that 33 year period. RJR, not NASCAR finally succumbed to the laws and regulations of the FDA and were forced to cease advertising in sports. NASCAR has also been involved in controversies relating to safety mandates and fuel consumption. It has only flinched in so much as it was forced to do so as a matter of federal regulations. So, the senator is dead wrong in his opinion of NASCAR not concerning itself with its reputation as seen by federal regulatory acts.

His intent in this letter is to intimidate NASCAR into backing out of the relationship it has with the National Rifle Association. There can be no other way to describe it. In response to this, I wrote the Senator a letter. The following is the full text of that letter.

Dear Senator,
 I am a U.S. Citizen, a staunch supporter of our Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment and a longtime NASCAR fan. I went to my first NASCAR race the year you were born. You are right about NASCAR's fans(at least this one) inferring its support of the NRA. I applaud them.

It is no secret how you view the NRA, calling them bizarre, unhinged, depraved, out of touch and extreme. You even say the have no regard for public safety. None of this could be further from the truth. I don't expect to change your views, but I do respect your rights to express them. We are guaranteed that right in the Constitution that you swore to uphold in your oath of office.

NASCAR is a private enterprise. They have the freedoms to make such associations and business partnerships as they see fit as long as they are not breaking laws in doing so. No law is being broken in their partnership with the NRA. The only thing that is being hurt are people's feelings. There is no right to not have your feelings hurt(currently anyway). Government and elected officials should not meddle in the affairs of those whom they disagree with solely because they disagree with them. If you don't like the way a business operates, you don't have to give them your support. Consumers do this all the time. It is called free enterprise. Trying to coerce a business into complying with one's ideals is pure and simple thuggery. If government is left to act this way it leads to tyranny. Our constitution, the one you swore to uphold, does not support this way of thinking.

You were elected by the people to do a job. Part of that job is certainly not strong-arming business to intimidate them into supporting your agenda.

I hope you hear from many NASCAR fans on this subject, as I'm sure you will.

Respectfully,

 Senator Murphy and his "esteemed colleagues" in Washington seemingly have no regard for our Constitution. They will subvert it in any way they see fit in order to achieve the goals that they have set for themselves. Recently we've heard Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Colorado representative Joe Salazar and numerous others make some of the most bizarre statements in support of gun control. Murphy is not only jumping on that bandwagon, but also getting very specific in targeting a well-respected, law-abiding American institution. The intent is clear, change your mind or your reputation will be at risk. That would not occur without throngs of loud-voiced bullies shouting them down.

Senator Murphy can be reached here.
NASCAR can be reached here.

We have a responsibility to let our voices be heard.

Hunting Humans and the Advent of PTSD

Dianne Feinstein, who has stated her intent is to ban ALL guns [1], just came out and said that hunting humans is legal[2]. In the article referenced, she states the following:

 “The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

Legal to hunt humans? I have scoured the Constitution, state, county and local city ordinances and I have yet to find any law that contends that to be true. Yes, I realize she was being dramatic. Yes, I realize she probably doesn't really believe that is factual. That isn't the point. She said it. She said it on a national stage. It was on TV and now it is the heads of the public. Just like that.

"Of course there's a war - I saw it on TV." --Robert De Niro, WAG THE DOG.

 Not only is it a lie, but it is peppered with factual sounding information to make it even more believable. Comparing it to duck hunting laws? Duck hunting, by the way, is legal. Murder is widely regarded as illegal. Maybe she was confusing real life with the Hunger Games. Maybe, she's becoming senile. Maybe, she's so hellbent on destroying the Second Amendment and the rest of our liberties that she's willing to say or do anything that furthers her stated agenda.

She went on to talk about the opportunity to take down a gunperson(don't want to offend any one's feminist sensitivities) when they are forced to reload because of a magazine capacity limit. I recently saw a video of a sheriff doing a field study of this concept[3]. As you may have guessed, the theory is not true. The time it takes to reload a modern weapon is negligible. Especially telling in the video is the portion where someone tests the limits of disarming someone in the midst of a reload. These are people in a controlled environment with no risk of being killed. They are not kindergarten teachers hiding in a closet in a gun free zone during a massacre. Also, you'll notice that they didn't explore the time it would take for an armed citizen to blow the killer's head off.

Feinstein went on to enlighten us about PTSD: 

 “The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.”

PTSD, a new phenomenon? It is statements like this that seriously draw her credibility on anything into question. PTSD dates back to the early 19th century and one doctor even suggests it was described by Shakespeare and Homer[4]. In any case, it has been formally recognized for over 30 years. The exact timeline is not as important as Feinstein's ignorance surrounding it. Again, by declaring what she did, she set two thoughts in motion. The idea that PTSD is a new thing and the idea that the Iraq war(which everyone knows was evil in and of itself) is the cause of it. She did not state that by mistake. It probably won't be long until someone makes the connection and declares that Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is George Bush's fault.

Again, this garbage is being disseminated to the mainstream media consuming public en masse. Feinstein is using the First Amendment to destroy the Second Amendment. When, in fact, the Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment. She. along with all of us have the responsibility to use our freedoms wisely. Comments like the ones referenced here are doing anything but that. Lest ye think I'm picking on her, there are countless individuals that are doing the same thing in regards to this current gun control madness that is occurring. The only conclusion that I can draw from all of this is that our liberties are not important to these people. If they were, they would be focusing on real solutions, not feigned outrage and reactionary behavior.

Our constitution is being ignored, evaded, trampled on and outright assaulted on multiple fronts. We, as responsible patriots, have a duty to protect it. We, does not mean us versus them, we includes them. The only difference between "us" and "them", is that they took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. It is up to them to do that. It is up to us to ensure that they do. It is our responsibility.