Blowing the Cover on Gun Violence
There are currently three massive hoaxes being perpetrated on the American public.
There are currently three massive hoaxes being perpetrated on the American public. The first of these is climate change, the second is that Donald Trump is Russia’s Manchurian Candidate and the third is that large segments of the population is being decimated in mass shootings.
I’ve already devoted a number of pieces to attacking those in Congress and the media who have perpetrated the first two. It’s time to deal with the third.
First, keep in mind that, on average, 37,000 Americans die in traffic accidents every year.
Roughly the same number of Americans die as a result of guns, but, in 2018, of the 38,000, only 14,542 were murdered; 23,854 committed suicide.
When it comes to mass shootings, there were 340 of them last year. But only 373 people were killed and another 1346 were injured. So, roughly one person a day was killed and four were injured.
That hardly sounds like the kind of numbers we hear tossed around by the media or by the anti-Second Amendment crowd in Congress.
Even the definition changes. At one point, at least four people had to be shot or killed to count. Then, I suppose because the numbers weren’t all that scary, they lowered the total to three.
This isn’t meant to diminish the tragedy of innocent people being shot or killed. But the truth is, they’re not all innocent. Inasmuch as most murders in America are gang and drug-related, it’s only the exceptions that get reported by the media and then exploited by the Democrats.
The reason we all know about Parkland, Las Vegas and Sandy Hook, isn’t because they’re commonplace but because they are the rare exceptions.
If there were a way to avoid these events altogether without violating people’s rights to privacy and protection, we’d all be in favor of passing such legislation, but there isn’t.
In a nation of 330 million, with half the politicians for open borders and against vetting immigrants from terrorist cesspools in the Middle East, we can’t ever expect to be entirely safe from stray gunfire. What we can expect is to maintain the constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families from the criminals and the crazies.
The Dems keep calling for additional laws being necessary to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. But, one, we all know that the places with the tightest restrictions — places like Chicago, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. — are the killing fields of the nation.
And, two, you can hardly make things any tougher to get a driver’s license than they are. First, you have to take a test, both written and at the wheel. Then, for any number of infractions, you can lose your license. Plus, your driving skills and eyesight will be tested regularly for the rest of your life.
Yet, 37,000 people will lose their lives on the road this year and next year and the year after. And not Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren or even Beto O'Rourke, has called for a federal confiscation of motor vehicles.
The Supreme Court recently declined to review an Appellate Court decision involving a Christian high school student in Maryland who, despite the threat of receiving a failing grade, refused to deny her faith by repeating a Muslim conversion prayer.
As part of La Plata High’s “World History” curriculum, students were taught extensively about Islam, but only the propaganda version of the cult, not the reality. As part of the course, they were required to list the benefits of Islam.
They were also forced to watch a series of Power Point slides, including one that stated: “Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian’s.”
Apparently even with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on board, the Supremes are too preoccupied with pot and transgenders to regard religious freedom a priority issue.
It’s hard to grasp the tremendous inroads Islam has made in the U.S. over the past couple of decades. Today, we even have two Muslims, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, helping Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dictate the direction of the Democratic Party.
All that these allegedly peaceful, decent people had to do was fly two jetliners into New York skyscrapers to get the gutless pinheads to prostrate themselves to the latter-day Nazis.
I’m reminded that in 2019 America, Muslims are far likelier to be treated as sacred cows than as the co-religionists of those who are beheading or blowing up innocent people all around the world.
At the same time, illegal aliens who have snuck into the United States, and far too often made their presence known by raping and killing adults, and sexually abusing children, are inevitably described as honest and hard-working.
It’s only conservative Christians and white males who are designated as racist, gun-toting, narrow-minded, despicable, bigots.
After I shared my idea about pre-funeral funerals, I heard from Stephen Hanover, who liked the basic notion, but thought it would be better to have the not-yet deceased out of the coffin.
Naturally, I disagreed. “The coffin,” I patiently explained, “is essential. That way, those paying tribute won’t be playing to him. After a while, everyone might even forget he’s lying up there on the dais. Of course, I recognize the possibility he might get too comfy and doze off. And if he snores, it could destroy the entire mood. In any case, it would probably be a good idea to video the event just in case the guest of honor misses anything during his nap.”
Another subscriber, Maralyn Polak, tried to convince me that she had come up with the same idea a week earlier.
Inasmuch as I was only sharing the idea as a public service and was not looking to enrich myself, I didn’t embarrass her with any probing questions. Besides, she sounds as if she’s prepared to take my (her) idea and run with it.
She not only is thinking about creating a website, but a brand name. She wants to start a movement. She even has a wowzer of a slogan: “Why miss the fun? Come as you are…ALIVE!!!!”
Maybe too many exclamation points, but I think she’s captured the spirit of the thing, and that’s what counts.
After I mentioned for the umpteenth time that I’m not religious, I heard from Ralph Barnett. (The reason, by the way, that I do bring up my lack of religious belief is, one, because it’s true and, two, because I believe it gives more weight to my defense of religious freedom, which is so often under attack, as it was when the Supreme Court refused to overrule the lower court’s ruling in that Maryland school case.)
Mr. Barnett wrote to say: “After reading you for several years, I realize you may not practice religion but you do practice spirituality.”
I realized it was a compliment, so I let him know I appreciated his words. But I added: “My problem is that when people are said to be or claim to be spiritual, they’re generally those East Indian mystics who seem to have a strong attraction for show business celebrities or they’re those annoying New Age flakes who deal in crystals and other similar nonsense.”
I prefer to be regarded as logical and fair-minded. And I hope to hear more along that particular line at my pre-funeral funeral.