Impeach!

The Democrats have gone all in on the Impeachment of Donald Trump.

They have been saying the word impeachment since before he was even inaugurated, but now they seem to be seriously committed to impeachment proceedings.

Since the Republicans control the Senate, one has to wonder what the Democrats are thinking.  There is very little chance that the Senate votes to convict based on the flimsy or non-existent evidence of a crime that has been discovered to date. 

I think its all about RGB.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not in good health.  In addition to her advanced age, she is battling pancreatic cancer.  Her last treatment that we know of was a stent to help keep the bile ducts open.  This is not a curative treatment, this is palliative.  It is designed to slow the effects of the cancer, not stop the cancer.  It is merely a matter of time before she is no longer able to perform her duties on the Supreme Court. 

The Left is in a panic over the Supreme Court.  They currently face a 5-4 conservative majority, with Justice Roberts being quite wobbly.  If RGB is replaced with a hard line originalist, even the completely vapid reasoning of Roberts won't help the Left.  The Court will be solidly conservative, with a 6-3 advantage (5-4 even if Roberts continues to drift Left).

Losing the Supreme Court majority is a huge problem for the Left.

Virtually all of their policy gains over the past 50 years have come through, or been backed up by, a liberal and activist Court. 

• Abortion was an extremely unpopular with most Americans before Roe V Wade.  That decision ushered in policy that would have never passed in Congress.  
• Gay Marriage failed to pass in any public referendum.  It was widely unpopular every time it was voted on by the people.  The Supreme Court made it the law of the land in a fantastical 5-4 decision, citing emanations and prenumbras as the basis in the law.  
• Overturning and delaying Trumps 'Travel Ban' was based not on the Law, but on the feelings of the liberal judges and overturned the plain and clear meaning of the statute on immigration.  
• Obamacare is the law only because the SCOTUS took a position that was at odds with the plain language of the law.  The ACA stated that the fees for not having insurance were a legal penalty, not a tax.  The Court ruled that despite the wording of the law, the penalty was actually a tax, and therefore legal.  

The implication is clear:  the vast majority of the policy achievements of the Left over the past 50 years have been wildly unpopular, unconstitutional, or both.  It is only through the power of the SCOTUS that they have made any policy gains at all. 

A 6-3 conservative Court means that this train has reached the end of the line. And it may mean that some of these gains get turned over by future decisions from this conservative Court. 

This is a disaster for Democrats.  

Therefore, they have to do everything in their power to prevent Trump from making another conservative appointment. 

The strategy has several parts: 

1.  De-legitimize the existing Trump court nominees.  Gorsuch occupies a seat 'stolen' from Merrick Garland.  Kavanaugh is a 'rapist and a serial sexual assaulter'.   This will allow them to cast aspersions and doubt on every ruling that they don't like. 

2.  Prevent Trump from making another appointment.  By impeaching Trump they hope to create enough chaos and uncertainty about the President that he is unable to nominate someone to the SCOTUS.   They will claim that an impeached President cannot make appointments, or that anyone appointed by him should be impeached as well.  

3.  Pack the Court.  The Democrats will claim that since Kavanaugh committed perjury (he did not) and that Gorsuch occupies a stolen seat (he does not) and that impeachment invalidates additional nominations (it does not), they are therefore justified in adding seats to the Court to restore the proper balance between Left and Right.  

All of this impeachment nonsense is part of a plan to prevent the Left from losing the one source of real power they have had for the past 50 years.  

You can expect that impeachment fever will continue to heat up as we get closer to the election and the inevitable retirement of RGB.  

.

Criminalize the Oil Industry!

Bernie Sanders called for the criminalization of the Oil Industry during the second Democratic Debate.

If you want to destroy the US, and the global economy in a single stroke, you could not come up with a better solution than to criminalize the energy industry. 

What will they do?  Arrest the CEOs'?  The Board members?   Where does it stop?  Do they arrest rig workers as they come off a 3 month rotation in the Gulf?

The entire industry would collapse.  Production would crash.  Prices would sky rocket.  Supply would dry up.  Gasoline rationing and price controls would soon follow.

The entire economy would collapse.  As production fell, they would begin to arrest workers as 'saboteurs' and 'enemy of the people'.  Oil workers would flee the fields, and production would grind to a halt. 

Think this sounds far fetched?  Well, it is almost exactly what has happened in Venezuela over the past 15 years. 

Bernie Sanders is a power mad socialist tyrant bent on nothing less than the utter destruction of the US. 

You Want Civil War? Because this is how you get Civil War!

Cook County prosecutors have dropped all charges against Jessie Smollet today. 

This is a very bad thing.

Dropping the charges in such a high profile case severely undermines the Rule of Law.

There are a few foundational ideas that critical to the survival of our civilization.  The Rule of Law is one of them, and you tamper with it at great peril.

John Adams described us as a "Nation of Laws, not a Nation of Men", and as The Patriot Post notes,


A nation of laws” means that laws, not people, rule. Everyone is to be governed by the same laws, regardless of their station; whether it is the most common American or Members of Congress, high-ranking bureaucrats or the President of the United States; all must be held to the just laws of America. No one is, or can be allowed to be, above the law.

This is obviously no longer true.

Who you are now matters more than the letter of the law. 

Hillary Clinton fails to turn over official documents and does not get charged.  Jame Clapper blatantly lies before Congress and does not get charged.  Eric Holder conducts an illegal gun running operation, gets held in contempt of Congress, and does not get charged. 

We rely on the legal system to support our civilization.  We don't engage in tribal feuds, or vigilante justice. We all abide by the rulings and sentences of judges because we have one set of law to which we all agree and are all subject.

If that fundamental social contract breaks down, we are headed for very dark times.  We already see what happens when there is no legal recourse for disputes in the drug gang infested areas of  Chicago.   Gang warfare that results in endless violence and death.

If the rest of country loses faith in the Rule of Law it will bring about civil war and the end of our civilization. 

Why are Venezuelan's Starving?

I think they are starving because of socialism.

Don't believe me? Then listen to NPR.

NPR has some ideas in a recent report titled Why are Venezuelan's starving?  Given the reputation for the Leftist orientation of NPR, you might be surprised who they blame.

Spoiler alert:  They blame Hugo Chavez and his misguided economic policies.

Don't get too excited. The NPR report never uses the word Socialism, or draws a direct link between Chavez's openly socialist policies and the collapse of Venezuela.  But it does talk about the government and government policy being the reason for the collapse.

Here is a key part of the transcript:

GUILLERMO ARCAY: That's something that started to change when Chavez started implementing what he called socialism of the 21st century policies.

ZUNIGA: Guillermo is referring to Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan late president. There were several agricultural policies that Chavez put in place. The first policy was price controls. That started in 2003.

GARCIA: Yeah. And price controls are exactly what they sound like. The government forces companies to sell their products below a certain price. The price is controlled. It is capped.
So in this case, back in 2003, the Hugo Chavez government started capping the price of food. Supermarkets could not charge people more than a certain amount for the food that they bought from them. It started with basic foods, like sugar and milk. And the goal was to make food cheaper for Venezuelans. But there is a reason that price controls are considered bad economics.

Reparations: An Idea the Nazi's Would Love!

Insane ideas float around the radical Left for years before they become mainstream Democrat talking points.  The latest absurd notion is Reparations.

Economist Robert Browne wrote the ultimate goal from reparations should be to "restore the black community to the economic position it would have if it had not been subjected to slavery and discrimination". 

The reparations proposals are long on posturing and short on specifics.  They make grandiose claims of oppression, but never really specify the mechanics of how reparations would work.

The actual victims of slavery are long dead, and the slave owners have also passed on.  So to whom do we give reparations?  Who pays?

Does Barack Obama pay?  He’s half white, after all.  Or does Obama get paid?  His father was black and wasn’t even American.   What about Tiger Woods?  He’s half Asian, and his father is black.

What counts as ‘black’, anyway?   People are dragging Kamala Harris on Twitter because she is half Indian and half Jamaican.  What category does she fall into?

Who pays?  None of my ancestors were even in the US until the 1880’s.  Obama’s mother’s family has been here since 1850 or so, making him far guiltier of being enriched by slavery than my family.

This whole idea is insane, and there is no way to execute it without creating massive injustice in the current era as a way to make amends for misdeeds of our long dead past. 

Perhaps we should adopt the policies of the world’s leading authorities on matters racial.  The Nazi’s had the ‘one drop’ of Jewish blood standard, and perhaps the Left will leverage that intellectual framework.  That will surely help calm racial tensions!

              

If Adam Schiff is right….

The Mueller investigation is winding down with zero evidence of Russian collusion.   

If the report has not been completed, you might ask, how do we know there is zero evidence?  

Because Mueller doesn’t want to be executed for treason.

If Mueller has evidence that Trump is compromised by the Russians, and he has been sitting on it for over two years without telling Congress and the American people, then Mueller is guilty of treason by way of failing to report treason.  

So we can safely assume that there is nothing criminal in the Mueller report.

Adam Schiff is now hiring an investigator to look into 'Trump collusion' now that the FBI and the Mueller team have turned up nothing.

If Schiff’s lone investigator finds evidence that the combined resources of the FBI and the Mueller team were unable to uncover, the implications would be profound.

It would mean the Mueller team and the FBI are completely corrupt, incompetent or both.

Two-plus years of investigation by the nation’s premier investigative agency missed the clues that this random former AG employee could find working by himself?

If this 'investigation' turns up a single piece of incriminating evidence not discovered by the FBI, we should fire everyone at the FBI and start over.   And Mueller and his team should all be disbarred and have to return all the pay they received over the past two years.

The Schiff investigation is a farce, or the entire FBI is.  One or the other. 

Popular Vote Compact is a Recipe for Civil War

The United States has enjoyed a remarkably peaceful transfer of power over its 200+ year history.  The only civil war we fought was over the issue of slavery, not the fact that Lincoln was elected President.   The basis of this stable, peaceful system is the Electoral College, where there is one clear winner under one set of rules.  Yet we hear Democrats complaining that Trump is “not my President” due to the fact that Hillary won the 'popular vote', which is not actually a thing.

The Constitution provides that:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

This has provided a number of key benefits to the Republic.  We have limited the power of the masses in the cities to elect purely urban candidates and limited the impact of election cheating to the state in which the fraud occurred.  It has also reduced the general level of contention around elections.   Recall Florida during the Bush Gore election.  Endless battles over every vote and hanging chad in the state.   But the rest of country was not subject to that level of contention because once each state’s electoral votes were allocated by the election result, there was no need to continue to count votes in every precinct.   

 

The Popular Vote Compact threatens to undo all of that.  It is a scheme to re-allocate the electoral votes of individual states away from the winner of the popular vote in the state, to the winner of the popular vote nationally.  This would destroy the Electoral College and undermine a pillar of our democracy.  

This Compact is intended to allow the Democrats would avoid a situation in which, for example, Hillary Clinton lost decisively in the Electoral College, despite winning the national popular vote.

This Compact is a terrible idea that will lead to division, chaos, and perhaps, civil war.

The Compact ensures that excess votes in places like California and Chicago will have a national influence, and the amount of electoral cheating will increase.  The Machine politics and ballot harvesting schemes will now affect the national results in a way they never could before.

It will also slow the results of the election from being final.  Most Presidential elections are determined before the voters have gone to bed on Election day.  It is the rare exception that the vote counting and voter fraud lasted for weeks.  This level of chaos would become the norm, and not just in the swing states, but in every precinct in the nation.

The lawfare, cheating, ballot tampering, ballot box stuffing, vote harvesting will spiral out of control.

The worst effect, however, will be that the Compact will potentially create 2 winners. 

Imagine a scenario in which, like the last election, one candidate has a decisive win under the Electoral College and is declared the winner, but the opposing candidate wins the popular vote after 3 or more weeks of recounts and hanging chads.   The Terms of the Compact kick in, and the individual College Electors are required to switch their votes to the opposing candidate.

You create a situation in which we have one winner under the system that worked for 200+ years, and another under this scheme of dubious legality.

 

How do you resolve this impasse?  It drastically increases the chances that a candidate, a party, or the people themselves refuse to peacefully transition power to the next administration.

The Popular Vote Compact is a terrible idea that will have disastrous results for the country.  We are already an extremely divided people, and a system that creates the potential for additional uncertainty is a recipe for civil war. 

Handicapping the Race -- and I am sure to be completely Wrong!

 As of February, a crowded field is brimming with enthusiasm, and things look like they will be amazing as the race for President heats up. 

There will be a few over-riding themes:

Socialist Ascendancy:  The activist Democrat base has gone full Socialist.  (Never go full Socialist!)  The candidates will continue to lurch leftward as they try to capture the Bernie 2016 vote. 

Intersectionality for the Win!:  The victim Olympics require you to maximize your intersectionality points.   This explains why Kamala 'Horizontal' Harris has an early lead, and why Elizabeth Warren is desperate to get points for being an American Indian.  The candidates will battle it out for Victim of the Year status. 

Trump Derangement Syndrome: the Democrat candidates will compete for who hates Trump the most.  This will be evident at the personal and the policy level. 

 

Elizabeth Warren – Fauxcahontas is already dead politically.  Her botched attempt to claim Indian ancestry is full of lies and deception.   She has the charm and charisma of a priggish school marm with negative intersectional appeal.  She is awkward on camera, and has zero social media savvy.  She won’t rise above 3% in any primary, but will stick around through sheer stubbornness.

Amy Klobuchar – Who?  The long knives are already out for nasty Amy.  Tarred as a mean person, she lacks name recognition and star power.  The Media clearly have it in for her early in the process. 

Julian Castro – Julian lacks the branding to overcome the field.  He is Marco Rubio of the Democrat party.  He is a plausible candidate for 2024, but completely lacks name recognition and real accomplishments.

 

Tulsi Gabbard – Young and female are still not assets in a Presidential race.  She is only a Representative, and from the worst possible state to represent, electorally.  Hawaii is not politically relevant and neither is Gabbard.

Kirsten Gillibrand  -- She is the perfect Democratic candidate, a younger Hillary.  Her biggest asset, however,  is also her biggest liability.  She takes any political position at any time, often taking multiple positions in a single statement.  She will be branded a flip-flopper. 

Cory Booker – Spartacus is too transparently willing to say anything to score political points.  He is running on his record in Newark, which is just as much of a crap fest today as it was when he became Mayor.  Running as face of Newark is like plastering your name on outhouses.  Not the image you want, even if your brand is ‘insane guy’.

Kamala Harris – She will be torpedoed from the hard Left because of her history as a prosecutor.  She has all the charm and natural charisma of Hillary Clinton (which is to say…none) without the political savvy.  She will be nicknamed 'Horizontal Harris' by Trump as a reference for her preferred method of getting ahead.  She is the front runner, and s

he will wither and die on the campaign trail, and get destroyed ing debates.

Bernie Sanders – Bernie is in a tough spot.  Bernie had success in 2016 because he went to the Left of Hillary. There are currently several candidates that are running hard to the Left of 2016 Bernie.  Bernie is going to have a tough time getting any further to the Left than Harris, Booker and others that have embraced the Green New Deal. He can’t get further to the Left on immigration— Beto wants to tear down the existing walls at the border.  Bernie will have a hard time this cycle because the entire field is running as Bernie in 2020.  Oh. Also because he’s like 100 years old.

Pete Buttigieg – Who? Trump will nickname him Beavis and Buttigieg.  No chance. 

Bill Weld – Weld is a straight white guy who was Governor of Massachusetts.  He is Mitt Romney without the support of the Mormon vote.  He is one of the least insane candidates in the field, and therefore won’t poll more than 2%. 

Marianne Williamson – Authors and lecturers are too smart for politics.  She has never won elected office and won’t make it out of Iowa.

John Delaney – Who?  Zero name recognition will doom this non-intersectional candidate. 

Beto O’Rourke – Robert has the media behind him in a way that other candidates do not.  No one has more fawning articles written about him, and he attracted national attention in his failed Senate bid.  Despite the media fawning over him, he does have some awkwardness on stage, and he has had some awkward first steps.   Media support will put him over the top against more intersectional candidates. 

My prediction for the winner:  the guy with the Media backing and the telegenic presence.  

Beto will end up with the Nomination. 

Mandatory Background Checks will have no effect on Crime

The Democrats are going for mandatory background checks on all gun transfers. 

This law will have massive costs, create tens of millions of felons through civil disobedience, and have zero effect on gun violence. 

This proposed law, like virtually all gun control proposals, would not have stopped a single mass shooting in the past 20 years, as an example of how little effect it would have.

The Democrats are currently proposing that all firearms transfers would need to be conducted through a Federal Background check.  Let's review the possible categories that this law would effect:

Sell a gun to a lawful possessor -- the law would have no effect here other than to inconvenience both parties. It would also incur a hefty transaction cost.  For example, my friend, a legal gun owner, sold me, a legal gun owner, a 20 GA youth pump shotgun for $100.  Forcing us to do a background check imposes a 25-50% tax on the transaction for no benefit.  The law does nothing here but impose costs and aggravation.

Sell a gun to a prohibited possessor -- This is already illegal.  Prohibited possessors are...wait for it... prohibited from possessing a gun.  This would making selling a gun to a felon double-illegal. 

Loan a gun to a lawful possessor -- This would impose massive inconvenience on gun owners for no benefit of any kind.  A friend of mine has asked me to store his firearms while he is in the midst of a bad divorce.  Under this law, doing my friend a favor would result in a background check and some multiple of transfer fees.  And when it was time for me to give him his guns back, we would have to repeat the process in reverse.  This is massive imposition on lawful gun owners for no reason.

Loan a gun to a prohibited possessor -- This is already illegal.  Prohibited possessors are...wait for it... prohibited from possessing a gun.  This would making giving a gun to a felon double-illegal. 

The FBI crime statistics reveal that crime guns are stolen or purchased on the black market.  Very few, if any, crime guns are obtained at gun shows or through private transfers.  This law would prevent exactly ZERO crimes.

It would, however, create a massive bureaucracy, cost billions of dollars, impose severe restriction on lawful gun owners, create a national registry of guns that would to nothing to reduce crime, and everything to increase the risk to gun owners that this information would be misused. 

Democrats are going for Full Gun Registration

Democrats are going for full gun registration.

Sure, they call it 'closing the gun show loophole', or 'mandatory background checks', but in reality, it is a call for full gun registration.

Any law that bans private sales of firearms will necessarily require gun registration.  Let's assume that I own over 20 firearms.  How will the police be able to tell which of them I bought with a background check and which I did not?   If there is no list of 'pre-background check' firearms, I can simply claim I bought the guns prior to the ban. 

Possession would also have to be deemed the equivalent of ownership, as it is currently for the prohibitions against felons carrying a gun.  If I have gun in my possession and the police demand to see evidence I passed a background check, I could simply claim it is not my gun, I am simply 'holding it for a friend'. 

In order for such a law to work, every firearm in the country would need to be registered with the government.  The government can then check the list of legal guns against what I have in my possession, and charge me with a crime for any discrepancies. 

This is an insanely dangerous and likely un-constitutional law. 

It would instantly turn tens of millions of law abiding gun owners into felons, as registration rates would fall well short of actual ownership.

The Dems will all be RGB...Really Going Bananas!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is hale and hearty at 85 years old, and plans to outlast Donald Trump's Presidency by sitting on the Ccourt until she is 90.

Unless, of course, fate has other plans for her.

At the moment, she is convalescing at home after lung surgery and has cancelled all public events for the rest of the month.  Her declining health has fueled speculation that Donald Trump is, in fact, going to get to make a third Supreme Court selection in the near future.

A third conservative Trump SCOTUS appointment would alter the balance of the Court for years to come.  It would nominally create a 6-3 conservative majority, all but guaranteeing significant changes in public policy on several hotly debated topics.

This terrifies Democrats and the Left.   They have made huge advances in their agenda over the past 20 years primarily through the courts.   Gay marriage and abortion rights failed on every ballot they were ever on, and only became law through the SCOTUS.  All of that progress is at risk with a more conservative Court. 

The Democrats cannot afford for this to happen.

If Ginsburg's seat opens up, they will execute a three part plan beyond the usual confirmation hearings circus:

1.  Impeach the President.  The House will vote to Impeach the President on some pretext.  The Mueller report, his refusal to disclose his tax returns, buying hamberders for Clemson, or some other spurious charge will be the excuse.  They know full well that the Impeachment will end with the Senate refusing to remove the President, but that doesn't really matter.  All they want to do is de-legitimize his SCOTUS picks.


2.  Call the SCOTUS picks illegitimate.   The Democrats and the press will scream from the rafters that Trump should not be allowed to pick a third Justice because he has been impeached.   The Peoples house voted to impeach him, and that means he has lost his mandate as President, they will claim.  Therefore, they will argue, the Ginsburg seat should remain vacant until after the 2020 election.  If Trump manages to seat a new Justice, they will then use the 'illegitimate court' argument to impugn and demean every decision of that court.  Note that the Democrats have already laid the groundwork for these claims, stating that the Kavanaugh selection is invalid because Trump is under investigation.

3.  Pack the Court.  There is no Constitutionally defined number of Justices on the SCOTUS.  The number of justices has been as low as 6 and as high as 10.  Since the 9-Justice SCOTUS will be 'illegitimate', and there will be no prospect for righting that wrong for many decades, the Democrats will pack the court.. Similar to the FDR's scheme in the late 30's, they will simply add members to the Court until they have a solid majority.  A 15 Justice court would be about right to achieve a liberal majority for the foreseeable future.  In fact, there are already calls for a Court packing plan being floated in the press. 

The Democrats want power, and they will stop and nothing to get it. 

Fake News is Fake....

Once again the Media demonstrates just how much Fake news they push. 

Government Shut Down is a Dangerous Game.. for the Government

The Government Shutdown enters its 19th day as Trump battles it out with Democrats over a border wall.  This is a reckless and dangerous gamble to take, and it creates enormous risk that... the people might discover that we don't really need the Government.

The new is full of endless stories about the economic hardships imposed on furloughed government workers by a hardhearted Trump and the dangers of Government services not being provided.  Such critical services as updating Magnitski Act sanctions, publishing reports of economic data,  and other random things are reported as a dire crisis.

It has been noted in dire tones that the FDA is not conducting food inspections during the shutdown and that this places our food supply at risk.

Nonsense. 

The FDA has zero impact on food safety. 

"But what if there is an outbreak of contaminated Romaine lettuce!??" they ask breathlessly. 

Well, since we recently had that exact event happen last fall while the FDA was fully functional, I'm guessing the FDA has no impact. 

The FDA oversight is an excellent example of why most Government services are a complete waste. Do you believe that, absent Government FDA inspectors, your local grocery store would be selling you rotting, infested meat and salmonella laden groceries?  That farmers would knowingly sell contaminated milk and beef, or diseased eggs?

No.  They would not.   Businesses don't make a profit killing their customers.  The food supply is safe because there are millions of businesses working 24 hours a day to ensure cleanliness and safety, not because there are a few hundred inspectors wandering around.  Businesses try not to kill customers because killing customers is bad for business, not because of regulations. 

The biggest risk to the Government and it's employees is that people get wise to how little value it is really adding. 

Armed Teachers are NOT what the anti-gun crowd claims

Every time we have a school shooting, the Left calls for more gun control.   The Right advocates for removing the Gun Free zone restrictions that made the target attractive to the shooter in the first place.

The current situation is untenable: Shooters are able to roam the halls of the school shooting people who are utterly unable to to defend themselves.   This continues until they run out of victims, ammo, or someone else with a gun finally shows up.  In the case of Parkland, the response was so slow and inept, the shooter simply got bored and walked out of the school mixed in with other students.

Our students and teachers deserve better. One proposal that gets wildly mis-interpreted by both sides is the relatively simple idea of allowing school personnel to carry concealed firearms. 

The Left reacts with horror and derision to this idea.  They claim that armed teachers would be as much of threat to students as the actual shooter, and that you cannot expect teachers to do that which the police will not, namely charge into the hallways to hunt down the killer.

The Left also creates straw-man arguments that are not the actual proposal.  "What, teachers are going to wear body armor and carry assault rifles all day?' or "Oh, sure, the librarian and the school nurse will sweep the building like a SWAT team".

The Right over complicates the whole thing.  They advocate for rigorous training and mental health exams for teachers before they are allowed to carry concealed weapons into the school.  This will have the effect of radically reducing the pool of teachers who are willing to carry a gun.   The armed teacher population will thus be extremely small, making the whole idea ineffective.

The idea is much simpler and more effective:  Allow willing teachers to carry a concealed firearm.  This makes things much harder on a would be school shooter and will limit the time they have to roam the halls massacring students. 

The teachers would not have training in SWAT tactics.  They would not be responsible to form fire teams and hunt down the shooter.  They would simply be able to defend themselves and the students by shooting back if the opportunity arose/

At Parkland, the gym teacher responded to the shooting by charging at the shooter.  Had he been armed, he may not have died like he did.  Another teacher heard the initial shots and went to the door to investigate.  The shooter was a few yards away, back turned, reloading his gun.  The teacher closed and locked the door, and the shooter went on to murder a dozen more people.  Had that teacher been armed she may have been able to end the rampage right there. 

Armed teachers are an excellent deterrent to school shootings, and we do not need to over complicate the idea:  simply allow those teachers who are willing and basically qualified to carry a gun.  This will greatly increase safety in our schools..

NJ Magazine Ban is a Game Changer

New Jersey's ban on rifle magazines has turned out to be a dud. According to Ammoland.com and other sources, not ONE of the estimated 10 million now-illegal rifle magazines in the hands of NJ residents has been turned in to police in the first 30 days of the law taking effect. 

This means that virtually every rifle owner in the State of New Jersey is now a felon.   And the same goes for Massachusetts, where a ban on bump-stocks netted only 3 banned stocks being turned into the police. 

The implications of this mass civil disobedience are profound.  It demonstrates that even in the most Democratic, left-leaning state, there is very little support for gun control. 

It also alters the math for the results of an actual gun ban.  In earlier posts on this blog, we talked about the mass carnage that would ensue from  99.9% compliance with the demand to turn in all your guns.  The math is pretty simple when you assume extremely high compliance: 750,000+ SWAT raids that kill tens of thousands of people and likely spark a civil war.

The 99.9% compliance assumption appears not only to be wrong, but to be exactly the opposite of what will happen in reality.  If the Second Amendment was repealed and guns banned, 750,000 people could turn in their guns and we would still have 99% non-compliance. 

The gun control crows whips themselves into a frenzy over their fantasy of making every civilian gun in the country vanish.   The early results look pretty bad for the viability of that dream: exactly no one is complying with gun bans.

The NJ Magazine ban is a game changer, but not in the way the gun control commissars think.