Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion from riflemaniiijournal.wordpress.com … Thanks again Brittius .
Shareholders Rake Anti-Gun Dick’s CEO Over Coals During Public Shareholders Meeting
Now, Dick’s Sporting Goods is hearing from its stockholders.
Since the company reacted to the February massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School by betraying its customers who support the Second Amendment, Dick’s has been hit by the gun industry, from street-level stores to corporate decision-makers.
But at a shareholders meeting on Wednesday, Dick’s heard from people with skin in the game.
In a direct attack on Dick’s CEO Edward Stack and other members of the company’s board, shareholder David Almasi, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, raked the company’s leadership over the coals.
To the company’s top officers, Almasi charged, “virtue signaling” was more important than the company’s sales.
After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, Dick’s announced it would no longer sell AR-15s (the “assault weapon” liberals hate the most these days) and would restrict firearms sales to those 21 years of age or older.
Those might be considered defensible business decisions, perhaps with worries about liabilities in mind, but Dick’s directors went even further, hiring an anti-gun Washington lobbying firm to actively work against Second Amendment freedoms in the nation’s capital.
Almasi cited that decision in particular in his attack.
Listen to the whole thing here:
After the Parkland shooting, Almasi said, “Dick’s Sporting Goods immediately engaged in corporate virtue signaling, by ending the sale of AR-15s, high-capacity magazines and other accessories. Dick’s also no longer sells guns to people until three years after they’re eligible for military service.
“In addition, Dick’s reportedly hired lobbyists to promote gun restrictions, even though you’re literally in the business of selling guns …
“The company is willfully giving up money. It’s damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment, even while the vast majority of … citizens support the amendment,” Almasi said.
“Thirty percent of Americans own guns and another 11 percent live with someone who does. Now you’ve alienated them.”
Will Dick’s regret its anti-gun positions?
According to Fox Business Network, Dick’s has made up for its losses in firearms-related sales in other areas and the stock has risen by 13 percent over the past month.
Advertisement – story continues below
Liberals like the crew at ThinkProgress are crowing that that proves the Dick’s critics are wrong, but it could well be a short-term effect from the political moment. Dick’s got a lot of headlines out of its anti-gun stance, and liberals could well have decided to patronize the stories because of the publicity.
In the long-term, though, Dick’s has a vested interest in pleasing its outdoors customer base, and its anti-gun decision was a flagrant snub to millions of Americans who could well have been spending their money at Dick’s instead of at a competitor. And shareholders don’t like having company executives who are “willfully giving up money.”
It’s likely not the last time Dick’s shareholders rake the company execs over the coals.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers’ newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you.
Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion … from AMAC Newsletter.
Nearly Four In Five College Departments Don’t Employ A Single Republican
To set foot on an American college campus, as anyone who’s spent a picosecond thereabout lately can tell you, is to step through a left-wing looking glass. But a jaw-dropping new study from the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reveals just how deep the rabbit hole goes: among tenure-track college professors at the nation’s top-ranked liberal arts schools, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by more than 10 to 1.
Rather than culling data from some voluntary survey, the report uncovers the political leanings of 8,688 elite academics by cross-referencing publicly available voter registration information with faculty lists from 51 colleges. At these schools, “78.2 percent of departments do not employ a single Republican.” And that’s just the topline.
The numbers below the fold, broken down by college and field of study, are even more alarming. Over at Wellesley College, perhaps best known for fostering pantsuited diplomats and disdain for the late Barbara Bush, there are 136 Democrat professors for every Republican. More than a third of the colleges assessed have ratios of at least 20-to-1.
At the low end of the spectrum are schools like the Naval Academy, where still more than twice as many Ds as Rs appear at the front of the lecture hall. Lopsided leanings are also evident in key disciplines, such as environmental studies (25-to-1), the humanities (32-to-1), and sociology (44-to-1).
Even If You’re Liberal, This Is Bad News
Look, it’s news to no one (except maybe the frequently confused Matt Yglesias) that the Left smothers conservative thought in academe. But at this magnitude, the consequences go far beyond who gets to wear tweed jackets with elbow patches. Each year, America’s universities ingest millions of bright but ideologically inchoate young people fumbling towards adulthood. Failing to expose them to an extensive menu of different ideas is a sure recipe for parochialism and intellectual indolence.
Even those who would welcome a unanimously liberal generation of Americans must recognize that a mind untested is as useful as a pencil unsharpened: it may be the tool you need, but good luck filling out your Scantron. The most valuable test of one’s worldview is to be confronted by an earnest exponent of a different or even contradictory one.
Moreover, consider the impact of straitjacketed thinking on academic inquiry. Despite being lavished with billions by American taxpayers, the social sciences are engulfed in a vexing replication crisis. Hundreds of findings once considered axiomatic have been impossible to reproduce, casting doubt on entire corpuses of published work in some disciplines.
Is this really all that gobsmacking, however, given the tool we use to appraise its validity? Peer review aims to ensure that academic evidence can be trusted by subjecting it to the rigorous scrutiny of reviewers with expertise comparable to the author. Yet as activists and politicians grasp ever more desperately at studies to lend scientific heft to their policy wish lists, academic research has become increasingly politicized. A panel drawn from a cohort of homogeneous thinkers cannot be expected to fairly assess evidence that has a political impact.
Look no further than the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a tool social psychologists developed that purports to measure unconscious prejudice. After being cited in more than 3,000 peer-reviewed papers by “psychologists [desiring] to help solve social problems,” and eagerly circulated by fellow travelers in the media, it was revealed that the test returns wildly unreliable results and has no impact on discriminatory behavior.
Despite failing to meet basic scientific standards, the IAT has been taken by more than 17 million people worldwide, featured in multimillion-dollar federal grants, and made the centerpiece of countless corporate diversity workshops. These academic blunders carry a price we will continue to pay until we recognize the limitations of peer review in an echo chamber.
This Means the ‘Consensus’ Is Tilted
The same applies to the notion of “scientific consensus,” commonly aired today in discussions about climate change. In 2014, noted demagogue John Oliver excoriated the media for daring to present viewers both sides of a political question by holding a “statistically representative” mock debate. To illustrate the percentage of scientists who agree on climate change, he trotted out 97 extras in white coats to shout down three climate skeptics.
To this profusion of unintentional irony, the NAS study adds another nugget: the 25-to-1 partisan ratio among environmental studies faculty means that out of professors who declare for a party, 96.2 percent are Democrats. By no means does this invalidate the conclusions of climate scientists. But policymakers should be aware that the oft-cited “consensus” is not necessarily a meeting of purely objective minds.
Let’s face it: the academy’s ability to perform credible peer review and proclaim scientific consensus will be hindered until it reclaims ideological pluralism. But how? The study argues that, “[t]he solution to viewpoint homogeneity may lie in establishing new colleges from the ground up” because reforming hidebound institutions “seems a very tall order.” Yet a vast new expansion, in the context of bloated federal outlays and overextended state budgets, seems even more improbable.
There is no choice but to reform existing universities, although it will take a Herculean effort from within to expand the institutional Overton window. These days, you can hardly walk through a quad without turning up some provost or vice chancellor underfoot, vowing to promote diversity. It’s past time for these administrators to show some mettle and apply that principle not just to race, sex, and creed, but to ideas also.
That means ceasing the assault on academic freedom and putting the kibosh on the heckler’s veto. Those interested in a truly plural discourse on campus should also think twice before reaching for the typical administrative pro-diversity playbook. Mandatory training seminars and hiring quotas are poor solutions, whomever they favor. Instead, we should take matters into our own hands.
Here’s How to Start
First, students and professors with divergent views must be bold enough to publicly voice them. The chilling effect of overwhelming viewpoint discrimination drives right-leaning prospective young academics into tight-lipped diffidence, if not different callings altogether. The magnetism of compelling mentors—visible evidence that conservatives indeed belong—is an indispensable counterweight that must be strengthened.
Meanwhile, freethinkers should join (or promote and support) nonpartisan organizations that defend viewpoint diversity and freedom of speech on campus, like the Heterodox Academy and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The surveys, tools, and research that groups like these produce are materiel for the vanguard.
Finally, right-leaning professors should strive to play a larger role in peer review, though not a tendentious one. These panels should not become venues for ideological combat, but a variety of perspectives is a needed check on cognitive biases, to which even pedigreed scholars are susceptible.
It goes without saying that all this may come at a substantial individual cost, denominated in professional opportunities and even personal relationships. But it must be paid. Otherwise, partisan faculties will continue to gather momentum like heavy stones tumbling down a hillside. The few conservatives in academia must be willing to stand athwart these boulders yelling Stop, no matter the risk of being flattened. The integrity of the academy depends on it.
From – The Federalist – by William Estes
This is a repost from AMAC, (I am a member), but they do have great articles and this is one that shares my thoughts. It is not the legal gun owner, but the bad guy with the gun. and really no reason what so ever, to mess with the second amendment.
AMAC Calls For ‘Rational Debate’ On Gun Control
“The murder of innocent children in our nation’s schools by mentally disturbed individuals cannot be tolerated. Nor should it become political campaign fodder. Yet that is exactly what is bound to happen in the next eight months leading up the 2018 Mid-Term elections,” says Weber.
In the wake of the tragic mass shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens escalated the politics of gun control by calling for the full repeal of the Second Amendment.
Weber describes Justice Stevens’ solution as an “absurdly extreme way to control the use of firearms. Not to mention that it would be perhaps the first time in American history that our own government would be taking away a Constitutional right.”
A scholarly critique of the rationale for gun control showed that many of the reasons cited for the need of more onerous regulation of firearms are deceptive. One of the criteria cited is the notion that “homicides are largely ‘crimes of passion’ committed by otherwise law‐abiding citizens not distinguishable from other people. Therefore, control must be directed at all gun owners rather than select criminal subgroups.”
Says Weber, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which keeps track of gun deaths, has found that nearly two-thirds of death by firearms in the U.S. were the result of suicides, accidents and legal interventions. He notes that homicides accounted for only 33 percent of deaths.
Law professor Robert Delahunty has a different take on the need for more stringent gun control. According to Delahunty, “progressives claim that more regulation of guns will deter violence and promote public safety.” But, he says, they demure when it comes to the notion of abortion control. “The progressive position seems to depend on what kind of laws they are talking about.”
Weber points out that he is in “no way” condoning indiscriminate sales of guns, particularly to individuals who are potentially a danger to themselves and to others.
“The emotional and mental stability of gun buyers should, indeed, be a factor in deciding whether to allow such sales. But, in addition we need law enforcement to be more proactive. For example, there was plenty of evidence to identify the intentions of the shooter in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School incident. The FBI and local police had been informed of who he was and what he was capable of. He was said to go around introducing himself by saying, ‘Hi, I’m Nick. I’m a school shooter.’ Yet, the authorities seemed to ignore the threat he posed.”
More recently, however, police in Lexington, KY got an anonymous tip that a local high school student was threatening to shoot himself and others at his school. The youngster had recently posted social media pictures of himself with a gun he had recently purchased. Little time was wasted in obtaining a mental health petition apprehending him.
“Instead of disregarding the right to bear arms granted by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution, instead of targeting legitimate gun buyers and sellers, let’s focus on the reason for the mayhem. We should be concentrating on the mental health aspects if the issue by finding ways of identifying those with problems and intervening and preventing further atrocities as school shootings,” according to Weber.
The Association of Mature American Citizens [AMAC] [https://www.amac.us] is a vibrant, vital senior advocacy organization that takes its marching orders from its members. We act and speak on their behalf, protecting their interests and offering a practical insight on how to best solve the problems they face today. Live long and make a difference by joining us today at https://amac.us/join-amac.
Reblogged from the federalist.com (http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/28/march-lives-just-helicopter-protesting/
The big “March for Our Lives” pro-gun-control demonstrations last weekend are being touted as the defining moment of the late millennial generation. Much as I like to think ill of millennials, second only to thinking ill of the Baby Boomers, such projections are unlikely to be true because, as Dave Marcus points out, they weren’t true of the Boomers, who were not defined by the hippies and went on to vote for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
“Neither of these generations, and in fact no generation at all, is defined by…media-hyped paradigms of what they think and do.” That’s especially true when we discover more confirmation that this spontaneous student activism isn’t so spontaneous, after all.
First of all, the numbers are in for the weekend rallies, and the crowd size is estimated at 200,000. That’s comparable to what we had in DC for the big Tea Party rally in September of 2009. It’s probably smaller than the nationwide Tea Party demonstrations in April of 2009. Perhaps a more direct comparison would be the almost identically named “March for Life,” an annual anti-abortion rally in DC that peaked at 650,000 people a few years back and regularly brings in protesters in the hundreds of thousands. And this is without the benefit of weeks of free publicity provided by the national media.
But these protests had the benefit of more than just free media. Under a carefully neutral title, “In Gun Control Marches, Students Led but Adults Provided Key Resources,” The New York Times basically admits that the marches are astroturf—artificial grassroots.
Although the events, which together drew hundreds of thousands of demonstrators across the country, were inspired and often led by students, many protests simultaneously benefited from groups with more financial resources and organizational skills than the teenagers had on their own….
Everytown for Gun Safety, which was founded and financed by Michael R. Bloomberg, the billionaire and former New York mayor, proudly declared that it had doled out more than $1 million in grants to local organizers. A nonprofit led by former Representative Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, arranged for more than 200 people from the Parkland area to attend Saturday’s march in Washington, and said it had worked with the owner of the New England Patriots, Robert Kraft, to use the NFL franchise’s plane to bring some people to the capital….
‘Our mission was to give them the biggest megaphone possible,’ Shannon Watts, the founder of an Everytown-affiliated group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said on Sunday.
There’s a lot more of this sort of thing in the report, but it’s all summed up in this amazing statement:
‘The kids did everything,’ said Jenn Hoadley, 36, who helped students organize a march in Anchorage. ‘All I did was say, ‘You want a stage? Cool. I’ll find one for you. You need a sound system? Cool. I’ll find one for you. You want to march in the park? I do paperwork to help you get that done.’ They planned it all, and they should be given credit for that.’
“The kids did everything” ends up meaning that they expressed their preferences and adults swarmed in to do all the actual work. Plus, in the words of another local student “organizer,” the adults “were paying for everything.” As we usually do. Oh, and all the angry rhetoric about politicians being bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association? That was spoon-fed to them, too, by a Parkland teacher whose “government” class apparently spent a lot of time railing against “special interests” and not much time on the Constitution.
I don’t blame the kids for this, not primarily. They are responding to a perfect storm of two big trends among the older generation. The first trend is the rise of protest culture, in which your entire personal and political identity are supposed to be tied up in which protests you attend. Combine that with helicopter parenting, in which parents are so eager for their kids to enjoy success and a wide range of experiences that they hover over the kids and hold their hands the entire way. I guess we could call this helicopter protesting.
This isn’t new. It’s a phenomenon I observed during campus protests a few years back, when the president of Claremont McKenna college announced “I’m holding a sit-in in my office.” As I wrote, “Today’s students are so coddled that they no longer have to make the effort to take over university buildings. Their elders will take it over for them. It’s like a weird kind of helicopter parenting: ‘Here, let me rebel for you, sweetheart.’”
Similarly, one education reformer observed the irony of the recent anti-gun school walkouts, “protests” that were effectively sponsored by the school’s own administration. “If students have permission to walk out, it’s no longer student activism at all. It’s a field trip.”
I have no doubt that the some of the kids from Parkland and elsewhere will do amazing things some day. Some of them already have, but they’re not here to talk about it. The rest will go on to accomplish much in their lives, eventually. But they will start to do that only after they emerge from under the protective wings and ideological influence of their teachers and parents and decide what they think on their own. Then maybe some of them will dare to launch protests without the permission and support of their elders.
Robert Tracinski is a senior writer for The Federalist. His work can also be found at The Tracinski Letter.
Of course, this is my opinion, the name of the blog “Bob’s Opinion,” should more than indicate that it is my opinion, my studied opinion but still an opinion. It is where I am able to say what is on my mind, what I think and what I believe. It is an “op-ed” journalism post of opinion. Now, with that said, we need to get on with this post “A Lot of Talk” part two, being pro-active in stopping mass murders, (mass shootings, or any shootings), and make it possible to restore the second amendment rights of the citizens of our nation.
Every time there is a shooting the knee-jerk reaction of the left wing is to stage demonstrations and fake news journalism to attack the second amendment and the right to bare arms. More gun legislation, and gun seizure. All this before the mainstream media hacks are giving their impersonation of a forensic autopsy and a complete dissection of the incident, and the shooter. Meanwhile the mainstream media and liberal politicians are pimping the tragedy.
A lot of talk as far as any serious measures to stop this madness of terror and slaughter of our innocent children and young people. We need action, and not more milking and pimping such an evil tragedy. If the amount of money that is spent by the left-wing radical activists and put it to work in PREVENTION we might get something done to secure the safety of the people.
The things that the shooters have in common is that they have some degree of mental or personality dysfunction; in other words, they are crazy as a loon. Okay some degree of personality dysfunction that creates a sociopathic or psychotic behavior trait that is really quite volatile, and we don’t want a meltdown episode. That is when they become violent and plan and execute mass murder. We need to be able to stop them from killing people especially children and young people. Another common trait is also a common trait found in terrorism, absolutely no value of human life.
There has always been those who commit mass murder, but not in the rate of occurrence that there is now. There is motive and triggers that need to be addressed, but, first the individuals or individual must be identified, and their threat evaluated, as mental dysfunction, criminal, terrorist, or just radicalized beliefs. and still within due cause and due process. However, as President Trump pointed out if we start with due process first, it could be the process that takes away valuable time, time that no one knows will end, we must assume the fuse has been lit and no one knows how long it will burn before BANG!
Don’t for one-minute think that all mental cases are dumb, no they are some mental people that are brilliant, able and have no fear. Four prerequisites for a planned attack. And of course, with the people that we are dealing with one thing is really not totally in place and that is the fear factor. Most will pick a soft target, it is easy and poses no resistance. Why do you think the socialists want to take our guns away? There will be no resistance during a mass takeover.
Nonetheless, the first obstacle is to identify the potential shooter or shooters. I doubt if strange behavior would cause enough attention to get reported as it now stands and most citizens would fear a lawsuit, it is coupled with identifying possible intent along with behavior. The police have a probable cause detainment at the present, it however, is only good for 72-hours at a psychoanalysis ward in the hospital. It is used for sociopathic and psychotic episodes and is to provide the patient with a period to reduce the acute anxiety or psychotic episode or to reestablish medication schedules, or detox, then to provide behavior observation, diagnosis, and proper prescription medication reaction. There is simple not enough time in a 72-hour sociopathic or psychotic observation, let alone the other areas of diagnosis, observation and treatment.
With the presumption that we need to identify the mentally ill and get them treatment, will not to rain on anyone’s parade, but, any one that will commit mass murder has a sociopathic episode if not a severe psychotic event, or a delusional or terrorists. This must be understood before they murder someone, but identifying the potential killer and the threat the individual or group individuals pose, is where it may get tricky.
It could be tricky because of the liberal shadow government fine-tuned by the Obama administration. That if the suspected shooter is Muslim, Black, Hispanic, or under the age of 21, the policy of hands off has been applied, or so it may seem. And the banning of profiling as a means to help identify a suspect was truly a means to block law enforcement from effectively doing their job. I remember how the MSM played Obama’s comment of the legal Mexican family out to get an ice cream on a Sunday afternoon being stopped and questioned by police, as his attempt to justify his lawsuit against Arizona and to protect the innocent from police harassment – Phooey! In reality it was his way of allowing more illegal aliens in to vote Democrat. But with those he also granted free passage to the Mexican gangs, and drug dealers.
It could get tricky because of what has been just a lot of talk in the press and all of it is postmortem. After the finger-pointing is all over with and the liberal press has used up its last fake witness and goes silent until the next mass murder. It has become so bad that it has to be mass murder by a semiautomatic weapon before it gets press.
The time has long passed to start working on preventing the mass murderer from killing his or her first victim. Before I get into my opinion of how-to procedures, I must address a couple of things that are so wrong with America today. If the wrongs are not addressed and solved there is no chance of doing a proper job of prevention. Like crisis counseling, or drug counseling, the first thing that must happen is light must shine on the wrong, unless a patient accepts the problem(s) anything done is only a Band-Aid. Here today, the patient is the American people and until we can shine light on the problems and accept them we will never be able to protect the second amendment or protect the public against mass murderers. We need to address our culture and what it has become. It does not mean “going backwards” like Hillary and Pelosi claim. Restoring our values and integrity is the starting point of healing our splintered culture. Insisting on what liberal’s institute as political correctness has done just the opposite of healing, it actually has brought more harm. Treating people with respect and dignity would have healed more of the divisions. But political correctness used as a weapon against conservatives is not only wrong but by necessity builds more hate and division.
Aside from liberalism our nation faces one of the greatest challenges in our history, and that is our splintered culture. How can we fix our culture when our people are so divided and under such strong evil delusions? How do we fix our smashed moral compass?
We must look at the mess we call our culture, the one that Obama bragged about as he apologized to foreign nations as he bowed before their kings and dictators. And tried to convince the people of the United States that America was something it was not. His infamous words were “and that’s not what America is about.” Before he was elected the first time he made the statement that Christians just wanted to poke along clinging to their Bibles and guns, then said to his liberal brainwashed imps “but that’s okay, we will push on without them – leaving them in the dust of history, and not into change.” Change to Obama was a Global Socialist Union.
Well Mr. Obama, you and the three who preceded you, along with corrupted politicians and the Deep State, are to blame for what is our present condition, and the blood of the people including the children is on your hands not the NRA or the guns. You and the liberal policies since the 1960s has finally came to fruition in the Obama administration.
Okay so now that we have placed the blame, and rightfully so, on the liberals and liberal ideology of socialism, we can look at the aftershock of it all, our nation has shattered its once proud culture that moral values, integrity, ethical practices and what was an advancing social unity. A nation that was teaching the three r’s and the fourth r is respect for authority, moral values in our homes, where kids were raised up respecting their parents and honoring them, they were raised understanding social values and decency, modest dress, and that there is a difference between males and females and how our culture has lost respect for our women, our values have been trashed by politics and liberalism.
Our value of life has been trashed through abortion, and senseless violent demonstrations. Our value of respect of others property has become a myth among the millennial liberal activists and “liberal community organizers” or as I prefer to call them conspirators against law and order, against anything decent. Since the 1960s the free thinkers have become more and more radical anti-American, pro liberal socialism as though they are under some sort of evil delusion, following yippy skippy after false heroes and a utopia promised, that can never be realized by a liberal socialist Republic.
One would seldom suspect that liberalism was festering like a big boil, since FDR, but it has, just, at times, it was more open than others, corruptness in our politicians and the actual race dividing “New Deal of Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of the Kennedy’s (Kennedy just didn’t live long enough to sign it), would produce such anti-American Activists such as Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson, but it has produced even worse in black and Hispanic racism against the Hinze-57 white man, where it is okay for celebrities and politicians to call for the killing of all white people, and if someone says the sky is blue, you are tagged a racist, where hypocrisy is the normal of liberalism. Obama’s policies over eight years has done more harm to our American culture than any other administration in history.
Folks, just step back for a moment and really take a look at the condition of our culture, then actually think of any bonafide reason that we should be astonished at such horrific evil as mass murders? We must admit that there is a problem with the mental dysfunction of all the killers. Muslim Jihad and Sharia Law, has encouraged, not only Muslim Terrorist, but all terrorists, to rape, kill, and destroy anything or anyone who don’t agree with them.
However, our American culture is not totally lost, and with the help of God we can regain our land and our people from the evil delusion that has perpetrated its evil into our millennial generation. We simply need to expose the evil heroes and replace them with real heroes with morals and integrity. The same with the politicians and celebrities.
Meanwhile, we need to be able to identify and nullify those with, or without, mental dysfunctions before they need to be a top priority of law enforcement on the local, state, and federal level and the subject of the media’s post mortem forensic analysis. Profiling is actually not a dreadful thing, and it does give results, while protecting everyone’s Constitutional Rights. It is a constitutional right for a citizen to live and to possess a firearm or firearms. It is not the authority of law enforcement to seize a firearm without due cause or due process, and there is where we have a problem in defining what is due cause.
Law enforcement should respond to all notifications of concern, in an investigative intent, first point of contact should be to make physical contact with the person making the report of concern, to establish if the concern is actually warranted. The second is to contact the subject or subjects of the concern. It is then the responsibility of the trained officer (and situation evaluation is part of officer training), if the officer determines the threat exists, then he should detain the subject for observation by a trained and equipped person or team, and a background investigation be performed as due process.
It is simple and does not require any more laws than are already exist, except the limit of 72-hours. 72-hours should be the minimum, and 120-hours limit for observation, then panel review to determine the mental instability and recommend no further action or treatment or should be held for further treatment, or placed on a watch list, with the subject’s behavior monitored. If the evaluation result be considered safe, then legal arms be returned, as due cause has been satisfied. If not, then due process needs to be acted on to permanently remove the firearms. Due process can be started in the courts at time of detainment with due cause.
I believe that this is just a jab in the dark opinion, but serious actions need to be taken to remove potential threats to the safety and wellbeing of the community. However, while getting the bad people and their weapons off the streets to nullify any threat, law enforcement must not be able to take away the 2nd amendment rights of any citizen. We need to nullify bad people before they have the opportunity to murder innocent citizens.
End sanctuary cities, end any amnesty for illegal aliens, create laws dealing with gang activities and gang associations, define terrorist groups and put them on a watch list. But it depends on restoring our culture to have any real long-term effect. We must do what we need to do while we fix our nation’s moral compass.
R.S. Helms … Bob’s Opinion.
The liberal press and the politicians in Washington DC are burning up the airways utilizing every communicating venue possible to pimp the evil tragedy of the Parkland, FL. high school. I have posted on Bob’s Opinion, an initial post on the crisis, (Culture not Guns), but since then I have reblogged numerous posts all about the gun, and the post analytical autopsy of the situation that seems to be normal in all mass murders. Just talk of what needs to be done about it, and it all comes down to more fighting over gun legislation.
It changes nothing, just adds another chapter in the growing volumes of failed legislation anti-second amendment gun control, in a bogus attempt at stopping the meaningless slaughter of our school children, and for that matter the slaughter of all our citizenry. It remains just a lot of talk, and no effective action.
First, we must understand it is not the weapon that may be used. It is the foundation of our American culture it is our Moral values, relating to our integrity, ethics and Christian principles plus more as we enumerate them, even sparking something as a light in the dimming canyons of our minds. Nonetheless, one cannot expect our American culture to be what it was even 40 years ago, as the decaying effect of evil has slithered forth, mostly unnoticed, until the past four Presidents. (yes, I said the last four, plus the several before them).
During the 1960s, the government put themselves in the position of taking on the personal responsibility of the masses, (people), it basically was a great power grab that started the establishment of a powerful shadow government, infesting the over-indulging bureaucracy who creates regulations that become the same as the laws of our nation. It is the shadow government that has the real power and assumes, through that power, the personal responsibility of the people.
People who still take their personal responsibility seriously, are the ones that hold on to their moral values, integrity, and religious principles. These are the American citizens who are patriotic, who are proud to be American, they respect the flag, our anthem, and to honor our military men and women, and see to it that our veterans are properly taken care of.
Americans who have personal responsibility, understand the reality of a key factor of our freedoms. “With freedom comes responsibilities, with responsibilities comes accountability.” It is the people’s responsibility to hold the corrupt lawless politicians, celebrities, news media, and the shadow government accountable for what they do and say.
Gun control laws is not going to stop anyone from killing, and it is not within the power of Congress to take any constitutional right away from the responsible citizen. The power of government is to hold irresponsible people accountable. And to stop irresponsible people from killing other people before it happens. That is the only responsibility required of government in view of gun control.
The corrupt politicians, celebrities, mainstream media, and protected liberal people groups, need to accept their personal responsibilities and professional ethics or be held accountable for how they act, what they say, and their general attitude of being above the law. And they need to be held accountable for pimping tragic and horrific mass murder incidents.
Fact is, just as with gun ownership of the second amendment brings with it personal responsibilities. Just as the free speech and the freedom of the press of the first amendment, also brings personal responsibilities and with responsibilities come accountability. Holding irresponsible people accountable does not allow for removing Constitutional rights and freedoms form the citizens.
Thanks … R.S. Helms