Friday, June 24, 2016

On the facts of Gun Control- UK's Guardian admits NRA is right; sort of.

A very interesting mea culpa by the ultra Liberal gun-bashing  Guardian newspaper of the UK in a stunning admission that gun control advocates demands and rhetoric really don't stand or pass the test of statistics, data, or truth.

This is something that 2nd Amendment supporters have always known and pointed out. Example: This article points out in the face of constant Media disinformation when Americans in a survey are asked if the gun murder rate is better or worse in America over the past 20 years? Most (56%) responded "Worse". The Guardian reported the statistical fact is that since it's peak in 1993, The Gun  and Murder rate is down by 49%!  The Guardian suggests it was for 'reasons yet unknown'. WHAT? down by half??  How can this be?  I, the NRA and it's members know how and why. It's the reason why the Guardian and Gun Control advocates were feigning ignorance for an explanation on the reason(s) why. To quote Jack Nicholson's movie line; "You can't handle the Truth!"

National Rifle Association
Give the credit for the Gun murder and gun violence drop in fact the overall violent crime drop trend in America, to the NRA. Because of NRA advocacy of right to carry laws for the law-abiding citizenry in past high danger zones like Broward County, or D.C. and other locations, to the NRA Championing and lobbying for the tough mandatory add on sentencing laws and penalties for gun use in violent and felony crimes such as drug trafficking.  Credit also the NRA support of and lobbying for, the computerized instant background check system that has been in place by retailers for not coincidentally the past 20 years or so. Lastly, but not the  least has been the NRA support for and  lobbying to enact tough "3 STRIKES YOU'RE OUT" legislation for violent crimes and criminals that go even beyond gun use.

Ironically, the Guardian still couldn't help itself from serving up some of the usual and predictable Liberal disinformation. By using intentional oversight the Guardian made an intentional and obvious misrepresentation during a  supposed attempt by the article to supposedly 'come clean' on their bias. First by not crediting the NRA for the crime drop,  and secondly by their intentional inference that the NRA and members oppose background checks on "all gun sales"? The Guardian framed that question in that manner using the word "all" deliberately and knowing that nearly 100% of all gun sales are already subject to background checks. That dubious attempt to mislead would be tantamount to asking "have you beaten your wife lately?" They were referring to the so-called "Gun Show" loophole. Most gun show traders are Federal Firearm licensed dealers ( FFL) with lower level, hobbyist type licenses yet they have had their full background checks, fingerprinting, and been through the utmost scrutiny by the Bureau of ATF.  Most shows rules often require licensed dealers to sell only to others with these licenses, or to ones buyers like me, with a Conceal Carry Permit that exempts me from many of the background  checks with my extensive vetting and fingerprinting on file. Gun banners are also referring to burdensome application of background checks and regulation extensions to private sales and transfers between friends and family that everyone knows will be ignored fully by criminals, Effective solutions are not their test or standard for legislation involving guns and crimes with guns. Getting all guns, regardless of who has them legally or use them responsibly, is all that matters. Whether it's through legislation, litigation, or over-reaching regulation, tools used as their means to justify their simplistic end. Their goal? The elimination of Guns. This doesn't match the NRA, goal and mission for it's members, and 2nd Amendment supporters. Their objectives with a proven record of measures and successes are to stop crime  and to keep criminals, the mentally deranged, and Terrorists from killing innocent people. Facts matter. If we look at solutions to reduce or eliminate gun violence based upon facts; we may make more progress than ever and save even more lives.

Michael R. Bednarz


Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Trump Is It? Alrighty Then Lets Do This....

Listen folks, I am just as troubled and apprehensive as anyone with the GOP choice, but our Party and it's voters have spoken. For whatever reason and logic that escapes me they have been willing dupes gulled by and drawn like Lemmings to simplistic marketing slogans like "Make America Great Again" heretofore lacking in any specificity or concrete detail. I am disappointed as are many lifelong Conservatives, but there is obviously some real anger and resentment that has festered and been inflamed like a boil ready to explode and this is now the result. The GOP identified electorate is so angry with the past 8 years of Obama and I believe with some unrealistic understanding of how party leadership has had to deal with it that they don't care if the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. I think just as in the heat of an argument, reason gets lost within rhetoric. Gaining the House without the Executive branch and only having control of the Senate for 2 years raised unrealistic expectations which have obviously not been met by Trump devotees.

We Conservatives in the past have eschewed the folks that backed Ron Paul or were Tea Party Conservatives and some of their actions when they didn't get their way with their Candidate winning. Many of them instead of unifying behind Romney made the intellectually dishonest emotional argument that Mitt would be no different than Obama. I am also sure that many Evangelicals misguidedly withheld their vote for their principles because Romney is a Mormon; regardless of the fact that his faith on Moral and Social issues would have mirrored EXACTLY the same as theirs did. So back in 2012 they took their Ball (Votes) and went home refusing to vote for Romney on principle, or voted Ron Paul as write-in. Collectively, they all likely voted Obama in for 4 more devastating years.

Disgruntled GOP voters burn Voter Cards in protest
Anyone with a capacity for logical analysis knows that there would have been a huge difference in the past 4 years, under Mitt Romney vs. Obama. Lets start a list, shall we? Economic policy. Foreign Policy. Defense/National Security policy. Terrorist policy. Justice Dept. Policy. Immigration Policy. Health Care Policy.Energy Policy. Environmental Policy. Regulatory Policy. Tax Policy. Trade Policy.... AND of course Supreme Court Judicial Appointments. My point is simply this, for those that would flippantly argue casting away their crucial and critical votes for Hillary directly or indirectly either by casting a superfluous 'principled' vote for an impossible write-in failed nominee or candidate choice, or voting her in with a Trump vote withheld. Those considering this path best think long and hard about the consequences of 4 or 8 more years of what the last 8 looked like and brought us. Think about how difficult it will be to reverse our National decline and indebtedness if we lose this year. Yes it is true that Trump is not my 1st choice, probably he would be near my last of all that ran, but I will vote for him and I will support him, not with the enthusiasm of Reagan but I will because in the final analysis, pragmatism and logic will "Trump" my emotions and disappointment in his gaining the Nomination. (oh jeez I think I feel better already, that metaphor didn't hurt nearly as much as I thought it would) I shall temper my disappointment with the realization that while his positions and policies may not entirely reflect my personal checklist; I know with certainty that there will be a terrific difference between Trump vs. Hillary or Sanders on the issues and policies I cited above. The differences will be as stark and mirror my own as they were between Mitt Romney and Obama. Ironically this analogy and metaphor was lost on Romney himself with his recent tirade and ill-advised effort to undermine Trump. We cannot afford to abandon logical pragmatism any more than those that boycotted Romney back in 2012 that we found fault with and likely gave us four more years of Obama and policies that Comrade Hillary and Sanders would double-down on. The stakes are simply too great. Game on.

Michael Bednarz