War, Peace, Pacifists, Realists

The following three quotes define the difference between: Realists and pathological pacifists; Patriots and pathological pacifists; Those who study and learn from history VS pathological pacifists; And, sane persons as opposed to pathological pacifists.

1. "Peace" is that glorious-and-short moment in time when the non-thinkers stand around "feeling good" while smart people are reloading.

2. A "Veteran"(Whether active duty, discharged, retired or reserve) is someone who, at one point in his/her life, wrote a blank check made payable to the USA and its People, for an amount including her/his blood, limbs, horrid pain AND life.

3. Si Vis Pachem Para Bellum!
If you wish peace, prepare for war!

Against Over-Seas Telephone "Services"

For many months I have responded to transfers to telephone service centers by the following means:
1. If, by spoken accent of (As occurred in one case) defining background music or foreign language voices, I suspect that the "service center" in in another nation, I demand to be transferred to a center in the USA, which is required by our laws (For the most part this law is obeyed); And,
2. Too often this demand does result in long waits for service or being "cut off", which results in my writing a "nasty letter" to the prime company noting that I will not do further business with them.

If anyone knows to which agency I should file complaints about such overseas matters, please add a note to this posting or write me a .

"Reasonable Limits" To Constitutional Rights

The constitutions of the USA and of Wisconsin (And most other States) state that the keeping of arms is a right. The Supreme Court of the USA has confirmed that the keeping, if not the bearing, of arms is a personal right. Before that decision there were some limits placed on that right being: Felons may not keep arms; And, many modern, military level, arms are kept from the People as was not the case when the US Constitution was ratified.
We have already, in Wisconsin, put limits on full right to bear arms by charging a fee to obtain a CCW license AND restricting that right to adults over the age of 21-years. An Administrative Rule has been proposed to require task-specific training before the full exercise of bearing arms may be had by the People.

OK---But, let us look at imposing other "reasonable" conditions on the exercise of other and basic rights.---Even if it requires amendments to our constitutions and changes in our laws.

Voting is a right already limited to adult citizens over the age of 18-years who are not serving felony sentences. If, and only if, those free citizens from 18 to 21 years of age are too immature to CCW, then they should not be allowed to wield the much more dangerous ballot or sign contracts OR marry or enlist in the military (Without parental or judicial consent).
For some reason, law-making judges have fought requiring proof of citizenship for voting although parallel proofs are required to obtain a CCW license or purchase a firearm. After that tyrannical interference with the democratic enacted decisions of the People is suppressed, then we must require the same "reasonable" limit, of providing photo ID, on voting as it is on purchasing a gun (Or, alcoholic beverages or manly other "freedom" activities).
For exercising the constitutional rights of both voting and holding public office we might require current exposure (No testing needed) to course work (At their expense) as to laws regarding voting and, for elected officials, the laws regarding bribery and other "misconduct in public office" matters before they are even allowed to run for office. This is like the proposed, required, education/training of those who will, in the future, apply for CCW licenses.
Since fees are charged for the full execution of the right to bear arms, then I see no reasons not to charge a like fee to vote or hold public office. Another fee is charged applicants for CCW licenses for a "record check" to insure that no excluding criminal conviction exists. Such a check is considered reasonable and should be for both voting and holding public office. Oh, I know that "poll taxes" were considered unreasonable limits on exercising a constitutional right; But, according to today's "thinking" on such limits (As to the "right to keep and bear arms"), that should no longer be a block for such voter licensing fees.

If we consider the amount of physical and other abuse of students (From primary grades through university) inflicted by teachers, perhaps such instructors should be licensed after having been subjected (At their expense), every five years, to some instrument as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to minimize the risk to those students. Exposure (At the expense of those teachers and professors) to formal instruction as to those laws governing the behavior and liability of teachers should also be required as a "reasonable limit" to the alleged right to hold a teaching position and, therefore, to "academic freedom".

Considering the impact of editorials and editing news, it might be well to consider editors (And their parallels in the broadcast media) as we do teachers and require the above, same, "reasonable limits" on freedom of the press and be likewise tested and licensed.

Of course, there are alleged and other "reasonable limits" could be inflicted on other matters of right as we do on the right to fully "keep and bear modern military arms". Of course, such efforts might very well lead to either non-violent or violent revolution!

By Tim Schimdt
USCCA Founder
Dear responsibly armed citizen,
Whether you’ve owned guns for decades or are going shopping for your first gun this weekend, chances are you’ve heard more than your fair share of opinions about which guns are best for personal defense.  One of the most common factors that I hear people talk about is accuracy.
“Can the gun shoot tight groups at 10 yards?  15 yards?  How about 25 yards?  After all, you’re going to need your shots to be accurate if you’re going to take down a bad guy.”  I’ve heard this one thousands of times, and I’m sure you can relate.  Most often these types of questions are good to ask, but sometimes they can over complicate the decision-making process and cause people to the wrong gun.
FBI research shows that 81.4% of gun fights happen at a distance of under 20 feet.  This means that the average attack on a victim unfolds very quickly and at a close distance.  This is not always on people’s minds when they are buying a personal defense gun, and it’s certainly not on most people’s minds when they are at the range.  So what is the most important thing to look for when considering which gun to carry for personal defense?

Democrats & "Crime Cities"

If you cast aside knee-jerk responses of "racism", the reasons "crime cities", are governed by Democrats is that they have large Black populations who: Have a considerable portion of those residents who have subscribed to the sub-sub-culture as described in Professor Thomas Sowell's Black Rednecks And White Liberals (If you have not read that book, stop here-and-now and read it lest you lack essential data!); Have subscribed to and demanded goodies from governments who supply them rather than quality education and a lack of interest payments on city debts; And, have self-enslaved themselves to both the Democrat Party and the culture-of-professional-victims.

The difference between the mayors of those cities and their other pimps and drug-dealers is only the scale of operations and the degrading products they peddle.