• Home
  • Rep Women
  • Calendar
  • Election
    • 2022 General Election Sample Ballot
    • Candidate Information 2022
    • Election Schedule
    • Qualifications for Elected Office
    • Precinct Maps
  • Lincoln Reagan Day Dinner
  • Local Events
  • Library
    • Government Links
    • Republican Links
    • Archives >
      • 2018 Election Calendar
      • Candidate Information 2018
      • Marsy's Law
      • 2018 General Election Results
      • Meeting Minutes
      • Women's Archive
      • Lincoln Day Dinner 2020
      • Lincoln Day Dinner 2019
      • Lincoln Day Dinner 2018
      • Lincoln Day Dinner 2017
      • Lincoln Day Dinner 2015
      • Lincoln Dinner 2014 >
        • Photos
        • Lincoln Day Dinner 2014 videos pg 1
        • Lincoln Day Dinner 2014 videos Pg 2
      • Lincoln Day Dinner 2013 >
        • Lincoln Day Dinner Pictures
  • Legistative Update
  • Organization
    • Mission
  • Contact Us
Spencer County GOP

Here we go again...

9/17/2013

1 Comment

 
It is agenda time for the socialists who want to disarm the country.  A country where the courts, including the Supreme Court, time and again have ruled that an individual is responsible for the protection of themselves, family and property, not law enforcement, is once again hearing calls for disabling the 2nd amendment.

Regardless of the actual circumstances of this shooting at the Washington Naval Yard, the socialist agenda is trotted out again.  The calls for actions that will NOT affect increased security for individuals.  Just feel-good executive orders and pushing forward the socialist agenda of taking citizens rights and replacing them with social justice. 

The left never rests.  It is incrementalism.  The socialist agenda is to keep chipping away at the rights guaranteed by the constitution.  Leave the populace at the mercy of and dependent on the bureaucracies and the ever growing impersonal and impotent government. 

Will we learn, as we did at Ft. Hood, that there was political correctness and quotas involved in this case?  The news organizations are already reporting that Alexis was hearing voices.  He claimed PDST with the VA.  There are reports of mental disorders.  He had at least two instances of discharging a firearm in a situation that was dangerous to others (in Texas, and in state of Washington).  Acquaintances are reporting that Alexis was aggressive, felt aggrieved and smarter than others.  News sources are reporting that Alexis was discharged from the Naval Reserve for conduct issues.  Yet he was hired by a subcontractor to a contractor to work in an area requiring a security clearance.  Where was the security review?

Will time reveal that problems and issues with Alexis were overlooked, and he was passed on to be someone else’s problem as happened with Maj. Hassan?  It is time to seriously look at the exposure to ordinary citizens created by political correctness, social justice and the soft enforcement of the laws on the books and in workplace regulations. 

Eric Holder and others in Congress are calling for the release of those who have been convicted and are incarcerated for federal crimes that were not ‘violent’.  Holder wants soft enforcement of laws that have caused ‘hardship’ on certain groups.  Focus is on drug related crimes.  There are approximately 500,000 criminals incarcerated in this category according to news sources. 

Were these crimes non-violent because no one was available to visit violence upon, and would they have been violent crimes if victims were available, or were the victims compliant and just allowed their property to be stolen?  One can only wonder what the ‘non-crime’ crime rate will be when these people are released into the general public and the crime is redefined as non-crime.

Employers are being encouraged to ignore ‘certain’ criminal histories when hiring new employees.  Some cities are already getting on the bandwagon e.g. Louisville, KY.   What will be the liability for the private sector employer?  Will the increased cost of liability insurance and increased workplace violence be acceptable to the liberals in the name of social justice?   

What does this mean for you as an ordinary citizen?  Remember only about 30% of crimes are solved.  Law enforcement agencies frequently report that they are under staffed.  Courts place the burden of life and property protection on the individual, not law enforcement agencies.

The solution to gun violence is not to remove tools for defense of life, family and property from ordinary citizens, but to enforce the laws at the federal and local levels.  That means stop putting criminals back on the street through plea bargaining.  Obama and Holder have the power to curb much of the gun violence in this country.  They have to use the laws on the books.  For whatever reason, be it social justice or the socialists agenda, there is no will or effort to do so.

What is ignored in the one way conversation on gun violence is the DOJ’s Special Report on Firearm Violence 1993-2011, JCJ 241730 published in May 2013.  It virtually puts the lie to the majority of arguments put forward by the left on gun control.  Here are the highlights as listed on page 1.


    • Firearm-related homicides declined 39%, from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011.
    • From 1993 to 2010, males, blacks, and persons ages 18 to 24 had the highest rates of firearm homicide.
    • Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011.
    • In 2007-11, about 23% of victims of nonfatal firearm crime were injured.
    • For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002.
    • About 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11.
    • Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.
    • In 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident.
    • About 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun from 1993 to 2011.
    • In 2004, among state prison inmates who possessed a gun at the time of offense, less than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show and 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.


The shootings on September 16 at the Washington Naval Yard are not a failure of gun laws and regulations anymore than 9/11 was a failure of building codes.  It is NOT the failure of rule of law.  It is a failure of socialist reengineering of society by co-opting the rule of law and substituting in its place social justice.  Social justice will put an ever increasing segment of the population at risk of victimization be it at the hands of an element that is coddled and tolerated or the government through diminishing the Bill of Rights

William J. Rutherford
www.foundingkey.com
1 Comment

2nd Amendment

2/3/2013

2 Comments

 
I have not commented on the Sandy Hook event.  I confess that I did not look at the ‘news’ reports for about 10 days.  It seemed that each hour another ‘revelation’ was in the news which turned out to be as erroneous as the one it replaced.  Unfortunately the news media appears to be in the business of making news instead of reporting news which only adds to the confusion.  But I digress.

Sandy Hook was certainly a national attention grabbing tragedy.  As with most tragedies of any size, be it a hurricane, snow storm, or mass murder, the ‘experts’ trot out their solution based not on the facts but on a predetermined agenda.  Certainly the Obama administration has followed this path to solution through executive orders and the Feinstein bill in the Senate.  Even the administration is not unified and/or knowledgeable of either the content of the bill in the Senate or the content of the executive orders, e.g. Biden suggesting that a shotgun would be a good home defense weapon when they are specifically mentioned for control in the Feinstein bill.

Published analysis of the Bill and executive orders suggests that if implemented Sandy Hook would not have been prevented.  So what is being ‘controlled’ by these executive orders and the Feinstein Bill?  Suspicion is that the motive of these government actions is to limit the second amendment either directly or by circumventing Congress.  It suggests the goal is to disarm the population. 

Certainly there are numerous examples in the ‘free world’ today where the gun control advocates have over a period of time increasingly diminished the gun rights of the population until confiscation was legislated, e.g. Australia, South Africa, and the UK to name three.  The results were pretty dramatic in the case of Australia where a significant increase in crime has been experienced much to the surprise of the gun control advocates.  Those who can afford the expense build walls around their homes with metal spikes on top to discourage would be home invaders.    

When asked in the past why I was not interested in limiting the second amendment I would rhetorically answer that a side arm was lighter than carrying a policeman on my shoulders.  Humor aside there are a significant number of court decisions which have set precedents as to the responsibilities of law enforcement agencies.  For your further review of this situation I offer the following, I am sure there are more:

            SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO

          Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

            Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

          DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

          Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998)

            Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958)

Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

            Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981)

Here is the link to Warren v. District of Columbia: http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf

This is a particularly troubling decision that should give anyone pause to stop and think.  Just read the first few pages to get the idea and feeling for the victims.  One can only wonder how they felt with the final court decision.

Basically the police have no legal duty to protect an individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.  Their job is to catch criminals, which is after the fact!

Then to whom falls the job of protecting you, your family and your property?  It is your responsibility!  Hopefully this is NOT a surprise to you.

Someone kicking in your door or in your house uninvited is NOT there to do you good.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is a victim.

At Sandy Hook it took law enforcement 20 minutes to arrive.  It is difficult to say what would have happened if there had been an armed staff member at Sandy Hook.  But since Sandy Hook there have been at least 3 incidents at schools with guns at which there was an armed staff member or law officer.  In these 3 specific cases violence was very limited.  These cases received minor reporting in the media.  It does not fit their agenda!    

It is said that gun control advocates may not believe in God or guns, but when someone is in their house in the middle of the night, the betting is that they will call someone with a gun, and pray they arrive in time.

William J. Rutherford.

  


2 Comments

    Archives

    November 2013
    September 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    November 2012
    September 2012

    Categories

    All
    2nd Amendment
    Bill Of Rights
    Dispatching Service
    Floodwall
    Holder
    New Topics
    Obamacare
    Radios
    SC-Tay Comm
    Taxes

Proudly powered by Weebly