Skip to main content

Guns & Radical Muslims

San Bernardino has had a recent  Islamic Terrorist attack. 14 innocent adults and children were murdered by a Muslim couple living in a nearby suburban condominium with their infant daughter. No one suspected a link to terror - though the husband was a member of a nearby (peaceful) Muslim mosque.  By all reports the husband was a friendly person. He seems to have put up a good front but actually he was a terrorist, radicalized a few years ago in the middle east. There is less known about his wife who apparently was purchased (?) in the middle east and then radicalized more than two years ago. Then she came to America. These two deranged individuals left their baby with Grandma (who lives not far away in San Bernardino), then loaded their car (SUV) with explosives, guns, and bombs, and set out to kill people.  Specifically, people where he worked. They told Grandma that they were going shopping.

They went from Grandma's to a local rent-a-car agency and obtained an SUV. Then they returned to their home and loaded it with assault rifles, handguns, pipe bombs, and remotely controlled explosive devices. They had enough ammunition to annihilate the people of a medium sized city, and they drove this arsenal across town to where the place where the husband was regularly employed. He knew that his friends, acquaintances, and fellow employees were gathered in one room for a Christmas party. He and his wife walked into the festive room and without warning began shooting randomly into the crowd. Many  of the celebrants were killed or wounded immediately.  Blood and bodies were everywhere. When the smoke cleared there were 14 murdered and at least 22 others wounded. Many severely wounded. 

That's enough to begin a discussion about gun control. Immediately after the horrid event  (right on cue) the gun control zealots started to hit the media with their "BAN-THE-GUNS" agenda. It is infuriating (to me anyway) to see so many educated progressives (almost all Democratic Party sympathizers) screaming that "the sky will fall if guns aren't banned in America". They are provably wrong. 

Let's look at a few facts: 

Leading causes of death            (informed estimates)

Heart disease                                   600,000 per year
Cancer                                             580,000
Respiratory Diseases                         140,000
Stroke                                              130,000

Accidents (unintentional)                   120,000      
(3,000 accidental involving guns)
(31,500 suicides involving guns)
Total: 34,500

Alzheimer's                                          90,000
Diabetes                                              70,000
Kidney Disease                                     60,000 
Flu/Pneumonia                                     50,000

Annual Deaths In America                 1,840,000  (LEADING CAUSES as listed above) 

1.   Americans are now allowed (under the 2nd Amendment) to own hand guns, rifles, automatic high speed-high capacity weapons,  shot guns, and other  similar weapons. 

2.  They are not allowed to own cannons, high volume machine guns, bazookas, mortars, and other deadly weapons of war - and are subject to immediate confiscation upon discovery. 


3.  Perhaps new legislation should be discussed and voted on. 


4. Such legislation might require that all rapid firing guns be "SINGLE SHOT PER TRIGGER PULL" weapons. 
* * * * 
  • As far as I know, following this condition does not distort the original intent of Constitutional 2nd Amendment.  
  • Neither should it change the "right to carry" laws. 
  • Nor should it affect weapons use by qualified police officers, S.W.A.T. teams, bank guards, jewelry salesmen and etc.  
  • The ultimate object is to confiscate all outlawed rapid firing weapons on discovery, and make it illegal to make or sell such weapons without suitable restrictions. 
  • Note: There would have to be a period time to turn in these weapons AND BE PAID TO DO SO. The expense should be covered by the Federal Government.



Dixon

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Gloves Off

. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED OUR TRUST AGAIN. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, makes no difference at all. Our legislators voted according to "what's best for them". It was clear that the people want to reduce the costs and improve access to our overall health care system. It was also VERY CLEAR that they did not want the 2000 page legislative monstrosity that was produced by a small number of far left liberal Democrats, who worked behind closed doors to fashion a pork filled blunderbuss that virtually no one has been able to read, or discuss, or debate, or offer alternatives to specific unreasoned clauses. It is (now) a BAD BILL , passed by BAD POLITICIANS, that compose a BAD MINORITY segment of America's out-of-control government. AND WE HAVE NO LOGICAL WAY TO PAY FOR IT EITHER. The far left liberals like to point at  SOCIAL SECURITY   as a text book success. They are wrong and will not admit it despite the concrete evide

Why Blackwater Mercenaries

Over some years the name Blackwater shows  up in the news. It is, by their own estimation, the largest mercenary group in the world. I think I first noticed it when reports from Iraq mentioned they were employed (by whom?) to escort and protect members of the Iraqi government from place to place. Then I became aware that they had joined several of the firefights between our marines and Iraqi enemies. I wondered just how these mercenaries (that supposedly came from the United States) were  hired by someone (who?) to fight? That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It  might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces.  Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse?  And would the Geneva Convention

Sarah-palin-itus

. Am I the only one that watches the liberal roar caused by the soccer mom . . . and laughs?   I suspect Sarah is a nice and decent person who will eventually prove to be a better political critic than elected official. But who knows. She projects an effervescent personality, a better than average intelligence, and solid conservative values. Still,  as a political leader of consequence I suspect she is a female Peter. You do remember THE PETER PRINCIPLE don't you. Dixon