by, RT | h/t Blazing CatFur
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wants to prevent information about its creepy biometric database, which contains fingerprint, face, iris, and voice scans of millions of Americans, from getting out to the public.
The Department of Justice has come up with a proposal to exempt the biometric database from public disclosure. It states that the Next Generation Identification System (NGI) should not be subject to the Privacy Act, which requires federal agencies to give people access to records that have been collected concerning them, “allowing them to verify and correct them if needed.”
Video courtesy of: ABC7 WJLA
The proposal states that allowing individuals to view their own records, or even an account of those records, could compromise criminal investigations or “national security efforts,” potentially reveal a “sensitive investigative technique,” or provide information that could help a subject “avoid detection or apprehension.”
The database contains biometric information on people who have provided fingerprints to employers, or for licenses and background checks, as well as on convicted criminals and those that have been suspected of wrongdoing even for a short period of time, according to Underground Reporter.
The proposal argues that the FBI should be able to retain the data it has collected on individuals even if they are later found to have done nothing illegal, as the information “may acquire new significance when new details are brought to light.”
The FBI claims the retained data could also be used for “establishing patterns of activity and providing criminal lead.”
In addition, the FBI’s proposal calls for an exemption to a clause which requires agencies to maintain records proving that their determinations regarding individuals in their data base are fair and legally justified, arguing that it is “impossible to know in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete.”
The proposal is open for comment until June 6.
Facial recognition is being used outside the realms of law enforcement as well. For example, a nightclub in Sydney uses the technology to identify clubbers previously deemed unruly to prevent them from getting in again.
Video courtesy of: fbi
Facebook has long used facial recognition software to identify people in uploaded photographs and offers facial recognition as a method of verifying a user’s identity.
There are now even facial recognition apps that can identify strangers on the street. While this may be great news for stalkers, it is less so for those not inclined to reveal their identity to random passersby.
Meanwhile, there are companies making products that can confuse or fool facial recognition software. A Japanese company has invented a “privacy visor” that will “scramble digital facial recognition software,”Biometric Update reports.
Specially made clothes and camouflage make up can turn a face “into a mess of unremarkable pixels” in order to throw the technology off.
Inside the NGI, in the words of the FBI
The information stored on the FBI’s Next Generation Identification System, the biometrics database it is trying to keep under wraps, gives federal agents access to a number of identification systems.
Here’s a rundown on the tools on offer to law enforcement, as detailed on the FBI’s website:
The Interstate Photo System contains 23 million front-facing photographs that can be used to identify suspects without human intervention.
The Repository for Individuals of Special Concern (RISC) allows agents in the field to rapidly identify detainees and criminal suspects by searching a repository of Wanted Persons, Sex Offenders Registry Subjects, Known or appropriately Suspected Terrorists, and other persons of special interest.
The Latents and National Palm Print System is an updated database of finger and palm prints that can be searched on a nationwide basis.
The Rap Back Service notifies agencies of the activity of individuals after “the initial processing and retention of criminal or civil transactions.” The service can “notify agencies of subsequent activity for individuals enrolled in the service. Including a more timely process of confirming suitability of those individuals placed in positions of trust and notification to users of criminal activity for those individuals placed on probation or parole.”
Iris Recognition is “poised to offer law enforcement a new tool to quickly and accurately determine identity.”
— MintPress News (@MintPressNews) May 20, 2016
— Lauren Walker (@laserlauren) May 13, 2016
Kings Cross club using facial recognition cameras to identify patrons previously banned for bad behaviour. @Sacre88https://t.co/T8hT9PdNmT
— 7 News Sydney (@7NewsSydney) May 19, 2016
When you find out that the snapchat face swap is actually being used for a facial recognition database for the FBI pic.twitter.com/pDZrA461nQ
RT @bobatl: when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ☕️🐸pic.twitter.com/mfE7BPJgf9
Fun hands on workshop @webwewant festival on tricks to fool facial recognition software.Seems Adam Ant had it right. pic.twitter.com/vb6wicMwiB
by, Kelly OConnell | Canada Free Press
The West will either reject the logic of Political Correctness or suffer a catastrophic failure of vision, will, power and influence, destroying civil society as we know it. This may sound drastic, and of course it is. But why is it being claimed here? Because the ideas in the doctrines of Political Correctness and related notions like Multiculturalism are so destructive that—much like magma—these cannot long be held safely before spilling over and causing tremendous damage, chaos and destruction of our society.
The reason it must be eliminated is because Political Correctness is a Trojan horse for Marxism, which always destroys everything it touches. PC is a curse which must be denounced before it mangles its host society, especially since it is the very opposite of Free Speech. More importantly, individual responsibility is eliminated by PC standards which make irrelevant personal morality. This is the subject of this essay.
I. Definition of Political Correctness
Political Correctness (PC) is shorthand for an ideology which implies ethical or moral superiority for various positions which challenge traditional morality. The Freedictionary.com defines PC as:
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
PC has become, in practice, a set of standards by which communication is purified from unacceptable content. But PC has also deeply affected public policy and law, and ultimately ideas about morality, itself. For example, against the longstanding notion of the right of free expression, even thinking many forbidden thoughts would break PC norms. And for this reason, PC has evolved from being rules for “sensitivity” training into a set of un-breachable social mores.
Political correctness has 3 features. First, political correctness is a set of attitudes & beliefs divorced from mainstream values. Second, the politically correct person has a prescriptive view on how people should think & what they are permitted to discuss. Third, & most importantly, political correctness is embedded in public institutions, which have a legislative base, & which have coercive powers. It is this third aspect that gives political correctness its authority. Without this capture of power the views of the politically correct would simply be another view in the marketplace of ideas. A person, an institution or a government is politically correct when they cease to represent the interests of the majority, & become focused on the cares & concerns of minority groups.
Yet, when peeling back the layers of the onion of PC, one cannot help but notice a strongly socialist or Marxist bent to these rules. And this is no coincidence. As Bill Lind says,
Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
So PC is a method for transporting Marxist ideas into traditional cultures.
II. History of Political Correctness
Political Correctness seems like the type of thing that would arise of its own merits. How misleading! Instead, the Frankfurt school of Marxism, from Frankfurt Germany, created PC as a way to disseminate their ideas in the Institute for Social Research. Bill Lind gives a brief history of this,
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank was established to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms. This created Political Correctness as we know it today. This institute, associated with Frankfurt University was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. So instead they decided to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Then, when these Marxist professors fled Hitler, they applied to emigrate to America and were accepted. The Germans brought PC with them. As Lind says,
Members of the Frankfurt School were both Marxist and Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany. Not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. Its members fled to New York City, were the Institute was reestablished in 1933 by Columbia University. These shifted their focus from Critical Theory about German society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society.
Related to PC is Multiculturalism—but what is that? Dictionary.com defines Multiculturalism as “The preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society, as a state or nation.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:
Multiculturalism is a philosophical theory regarding the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity. Mere toleration of group falls short of making minority groups equal citizens; recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required through “group-differentiated rights.” While multiculturalism is an umbrella term to characterize the moral and political claims of a wide range of disadvantaged groups, including African Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled, most theorists of multiculturalism tend to focus their arguments on immigrants who are ethnic and religious minorities, minority nations, and indigenous peoples.
The West is beginning to understand the problems with multiculturalism, as described in the article The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism. States the author:
A new integration bill (covering letter & 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, reads: “The government shares the social dissatisfaction over the multicultural society model and plans to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people. In the new integration system, the values of the Dutch society play a central role. With this change, the government steps away from the model of a multicultural society.”
IV. Effects of Political Correctness
So it is clear that PC is a Marxist ideology which is meant to help ripen the West for socialist takeover. But what are its impacts? Here are some pernicious effects of the PC movement which prove we must drop this false standard.
A: PC Opposes Freedom of Belief
Clearly, if PC blocks the expression of “bad” statements—this is because these ideas are inherently unacceptable. In other words, one should be ashamed at having these thoughts. As individuals lose their freedom to express their beliefs, they lose their ability to think freely, as well.
B: PC Allows an Ideology Without Standards of Right & Wrong to Establish Morality
There is no locus of morality in Marxist or socialist thought—merely a demand to equally distribute all world goods. Therefore, PC beliefs, rules and judgments can only be subjective.
C: PC Assumes Moral Excellence is Achievable Without Debate
The chief presumption of PC is that all serious moral debate about the human condition has already taken place and arguing about it is redundant. This is related to the philosopher Hegel’s (Marx’s role model) insane idea that history was over now that Hegel had come on the scene.
D: PC Presumes Moral Bravery is Unobjectionable
An absurd result of the PC fiction is that all moral struggles have now been solved, and the outcome is not only clear, but unremarkable. Yet, if this were assumed in the past, many irreplaceable debates would have never happened, including over democracy, sufferagism, slavery, women and children’s rights, etc. But this is a nonsensical conclusion.
E: PC Sanctions Mere Words
PC seeks to make illegal every insensitive use of language. Yet only for socialist or Marxist causes.
F: PC Predetermines Truths & Stops Honest Moral Analysis
Perhaps the most audacious presumption of PC is that all truths are already known and have been processed by PC thinkers and writers. So it eliminates the idea that truth be debated since it has already been decided beforehand. In doing this, it makes all moral debates redundant.
G: PC Keeps People From Talking Honestly so Cripples Free Debate
PC means one cannot freely discuss any controversial topic since such a debate presumes honesty. But if moral positions are predetermined, then it is simply unacceptable to announce or advent for any positions not already blessed by PC. This stops people and societies from dealing with the most pressing problems.
H: PC Forces Individuals to Accept Ideas Against Their Conscience
Even a few years ago, a person of a religious mindset could espouse opposition to things of which they disapproved. Now to do so would mean public sanctions and possibly criminal penalties. All for merely disagreeing with certain thoughts or activities.
I: PC Makes Certain Groups Above Criticism
A dangerous aspect of PC is the tendency to defend the actions of individuals not by virtue of their inherent morality, but instead by association of their tribal source.
J: PC Makes Logic, History & Ethics Subservient to Lesser Concerns
PC forces socialist mores and standards upon individuals even though history reveals such ideas always fail, and common sense indicates these beliefs lack all ethical soundness.
K: PC Creates Distrust Between Races & Cultures
Since the PC movement has created special categories and rewards for those of exemplary status, other groups feel suspicious of these persons. This refusal to accept meritocracy can only breed unsoundness and destruction in such sacrosanct groups.
L: PC is Anti-Efficiency, Rewarding Status Over Achievement
If groups are rewarded not by their good works, but merely by being a passive member of a protected class, this action will certainly increase indolence and incompetence.
M: PC is Backwards Looking
The PC movement seeks to repay groups on the basis of things denied their predecessors which is not just irrational, but also unfair to those amongst the living.
N: PC Breaks Down Potential for Democracy
Since PC opposes free speech, it harms democracy since democracy is based upon free political choice.
O: PC Claims Coercion More Important Than Persuasion
Clearly, since PC spends so much time and effort to silence “insensitive” speakers—it cares more about shutting people up as opposed to persuade them. Therefore, PC can lead to conflict by bottling up anger, ignorance and misunderstandings.
P: PC Invalidates All Religions Which Claim Timeless Morality
If the PC movement is correct, all traditional—meaning biblical religions—must be false, since they regularly argue against PC standards. Therefore, PC is not just anti-religion but also against traditional morality. Therefore it is very destructive of society.
V. If Not for PC, Barack Would No Longer be in Office
It is obvious that Obama has received many kudos for being the first true minority elected president. Yet, it is also doubtless that he gathers enormous sympathy and pity for this status, as well. Yet, if we are honest, we must admit that another president would not have received the same support and forgiveness for his many mistakes. So, since Barack is destroying America through ignorance, laziness or even ill-will, the PC movement is likewise dissolving the US.
Therefore, we must destroy PC before it destroys us. And the only way to eviscerate this intellectual parasite and moral blight is to demand Free Speech be regarded as more important than PC and its countless restrictions. Further, that PC is the mortal enemy of Free Speech and only one of them can survive. These leftist codes must be permanently dismissed in favor of our ancestral liberties and rights, or bondage will be established as surely as night follows day.
by, J. Schuyler Montague | sharia unveiled
What would the world look like today if the Chinese never invented black powder? What would the world look like today if the first hydrogen atom was never split?
What might have been or what could have been doesn’t really matter at this point. The proverbial genie was let out of the lamp many centuries ago and all that matters now is, where do we go from here?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is little greater that separates us as Americns from the rest of the world than those words above. Many of our freedoms are common freedoms shared with many nations, but the ‘..right of the people to keep and bear arms..’ is that which sets us apart. Our insightful forefathers knew long ago, just as they required the Second Amendment to acquire our republic, we would one day require it ourselves, in order to preserve it and keep it secure. Not necessarily secure from a foreign invader, but secure from the enemy within. What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand? Oh, they understand it very well. They understand that, the only barrier that stands between us, the people and tyranny are those hallowed words. They understand, as we do, that the second amendment is the one amendment that ensures and secures all of the rest.
Today in America, there is a liberal constituency that have disillusioned themselves into thinking that we would somehow be safer without guns. They believe that all murders would end and suddenly utopia would wash up on our shores and everyone will sit around the campfire, holding hands while singing kumbaya. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. You see, the act of murder is not begot from the barrel of a gun, but rather, it’s born from the heart of man. Long before those Chinese alchemists accidentally stumbled upon the synthesis for black powder, murder existed. Whether it was by the stone or by the sword, murder long predates the gun. Even if every firearm was removed from the planet by midnight tonight, we would awake to the stories of murder tomorrow. Whether it be by the sword of the Arab, the noose of the Persian or the knife of the Westerner in the kitchen sink..murder would not cease to exist.
If the liberals truly cared about saving lives, they should focus their efforts on the heart of man. They would concentrate their efforts on enforcing the laws on the criminal, instead of forcing their agenda onto the innocent. Especially considering, criminals do not obey gun laws. Hence, the term ‘criminal.’ Therefore, why would they suddenly obey those laws, once our rights are taken away? The truth is..they wouldn’t.
So, what would an America with no second amendment look like? If we, the citizens of the Republic ever allowed this right to be taken from us, to what nation would we awake the next day? In order to gain a greater understanding of that reality, first we must look to the past. Many nations have already walked that path, so let’s see how that worked out for them, shall we?
1—–Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 enabling the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and by a conscious process of attrition, destroyed them.
2—–The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911, proceeding then to exterminate 1.5 million Armenians from 1914 – 1917.
3—–The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently from 1929 – 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.
4—–China. Gun control laws were enacted in 1935. Between 1948 – 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were likewise murdered.
5—–In the United States the first gun control laws were enacted during the Civil War era to prevent guns from falling into the hands of black slaves who might be inclined to attack their masters and thereby keeping control in the hands of the latter.
6—–Guatemala. Gun control laws were passed in 1964: as a result, between 1964 – 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians met their deaths.
7—–Uganda. Established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 – 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.
8—–Cambodia. Established gun control measures in 1956, subsequently from 1957 – 1977 one million Cambodians met their deaths.
The following is the expanded version with pictures and some interesting supporting links:
Armenians being marched off to the death camps.
In 1938, Germany enacts gun control laws which were targeted squarely at the Jews. Between 1939 and 1945, 13 million Jews and other undesirables were rounded up and exterminated by the German government.
Adolph Hitler’s own thoughts on gun control:
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.”
China establishes gun control in 1935. From 1949 to 1975, 50-60 million Chinese citizens are exterminated by the Chinese government lead by the infamous Mao Zedong.
The soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, made use of existing gun laws to ensure that his extermination of some 60 million people went smoothly.
The first Soviet gun controls were imposed during the Russian Civil War, as Czarists, Western troops, and national independence movements battled the central Red regime. Firearm registration was introduced on April 1, 1918.  On August 30, Fanny Kaplan supposedly wounded Lenin during an assassination attempt; the attempted assassination spurred a nationwide reign of terror.  In October 1918, the Council of People’s Commissars (the government) ordered the surrender of all firearms, ammunition, and sabres.  As has been the case in almost every nation where firearms registration has been introduced, registration proved a prelude to confiscation. Exempt from the confiscation order, however, were members of the Communist Party.  A 1920 decree imposed a mandatory minimum penalty of six months in prison for (non-Communist) possession of a firearm, even where there was no criminal intent. 
After the Red victory in the Civil War, the firearms laws were consolidated in a Criminal Code, which provided that unauthorized possession of a firearm would be punishable by hard labor.  A 1925 law made unauthorized possession of a firearm punishable by three months of hard labor, plus a fine of 300 rubles (equal to about four months’ wages for a highly-paid construction worker). 
Stalin apparently found little need to change the weapons control structure he had inherited. His only contributions were a 1935 law making illegal carrying of a knife punishable by five years in prison and a decree of that same year extending “all penalties, including death, down to twelve-year-old children.” 
Uganda established gun control in 1970 (Firearms act of 1970- This legislation made legal ownership of firearms more difficult than the pre-existing 1956 British colonial legislation through an expanded system of firearm registration and prohibitive licensing. It also banned a wide range of firearms. Civilian ownership of firearms, already low in Uganda, appears to have been virtually eliminated (Simkin, et al., 1994, pp.285-289). Between 1971 and 1979, 300,000 Christians are rounded up and exterminated by the government of Idi Amin.
Cambodian gun control was a legacy of French colonialism. A series of Royal Ordinances, decreed by a monarchy subservient to the French, appears to have been enacted out of fear of the Communist and anti-colonial insurgencies that were taking place in the 1920s and 1930s throughout Southeast Asia, although not in Cambodia.  The first law, in 1920, dealt with the carrying of guns, while the last law in the series, in 1938, imposed a strict licensing system.  Only hunters could have guns, and they were allowed to own only a single firearm.  These colonial laws appear to have stayed in place after Cambodia was granted independence. The Khmer Rouge enacted no new gun control laws, for they enacted no laws at all other than a Constitution. 
Cambodia was a poor country, and few people could afford guns.  On the other hand, the chaos that accompanies any war might have given some Cambodians the opportunity to acquire firearms from corrupt or dead soldiers. There is no solid evidence about how many Cambodians, with no cultural history of firearms ownership, attempted to do so. 
As soon as the Khmer Rouge took power, they immediately set out to disarm the populace. One Cambodian recalls that:
Eang [a woman] watched soldiers stride onto the porches of the houses and knock on the doors and ask the people who answered if they had any weapons. “We are here now to protect you,” the soldiers said, “and no one has a need for a weapon any more.” People who said that they kept no weapons were forced to stand aside and allow the soldiers to look for themselves. . . . The round-up of weapons took nine or ten days, and once the soldiers had concluded the villagers were no longer armed, they dropped their pretense of friendliness. . . . The soldiers said everyone would have to leave the village for a while, so that the troops could search for weapons; when the search was finished, they could return. 
People being forced out of villages and cities were searched thoroughly, and weapons and foreign currency were confiscated.  To the limited extent that Cambodians owned guns through the government licensing system, the names of registered gun owners were of course available to the new government
What do all of these Cambodians have in common? They were unarmed and they were killed by their radical left wing government.
More recently, In Rwanda during the 1990s, some 800,000 unarmed Tutsis were slaughtered by the new Hutu government. It is interesting to note that most of the murders were committed with machetes. More interesting than that, however, is the fact that communist China supplied the Hutus with 581,000 machetes in 1993 BUT Even more interesting than that is that the former Secretary General of the United Nations, one Boutros Boutros-Ghali, facilitated the arms deals with the Hutus, the deal that facilitated the genocide. In 1990, then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt, Boutros-Ghali, facilitated an arms deal which was to result in $26 million worth of mortar bombs, rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda and then used to perpetrate a genocide a few years later. China. The UN. Gun control. Genocide.
Made in China
Rummel defines democide as “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”
His research shows, further, that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.
Bottom line, statistically speaking, you are much more likely to be killed by your government than by a gun wielding maniac in a theater especially if you have allowed your government to disarm you. It should be obvious to you after reading this, that it has primarily been radical left wing socialist/communist governments imposing gun control and then perpetrating genocide against select members of the newly disarmed populace. It is also worth mentioning that gun registration typically precedes these events. It ought not be surprising to you that the leftists of this country are the ones pushing for gun control in the name of preventing crime despite an abundance of evidence that shows that gun control does not prevent crime. Further, it should come as no surprise that registration of long guns is increasingly being touted as a “reasonable” gun control legislation. Sales of assault rifles ending up in the hands of Mexican cartels was, in fact, to be the just cause for this incremental step towards subjugation of the free men and women of America. Luckily, their machinations were sufficiently exposed and thus foiled. They know what they’re trying to do. They do have an agenda. They do intend to disarm this country one way or another. Remain vigilant my friends. Not one step backwards. Ever forward. The life you save may be your own.
A Special ‘Thank you’ to: R.Cone and U.areme for contributing to this article.
reference attribution: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2913152/posts
By, Schuyler Montague
Benjamin Franklin stated it best when he said: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
What beautiful words of wisdom, that apply today in America, as much if not more so, than the day he was first quoted. With the proposal of each new bill and the passing of each new law today, we find ourselves deeper and deeper in debt. Not just in the financial sense, but equally if not more importantly, in our deficit of freedom.
Government today is completely and totally reactionary and utilizes each and every opportunity to grab another handful of our rights, liberties and freedoms. These are all rights that we will never see again. Each liberty that we allow to be taken away today will be just one more freedom that children born tomorrow will never know.
No right nor freedom has ever been provided or given by any government. All of our liberties were endowed to us by our Creator at birth. Governments only possess the ability to limit, restrict or completely absolve us of our God-given rights. The freedoms that we enjoy today and the rights we allow to slip away were preserved, protected and passed down by the bloodshed of our ancestors. Our brave and courageous grandfathers shed their blood in valleys, on hillsides and from sea to shining sea, just to ensure our rights were secure for us today.
Our government instills the fear factor and any other tool at their disposal to bring the citizens into submission. They utilize conditioning and desensitizing techniques to slowly lure us down the path to servitude. We cannot turn on the news today without being subjected to around the clock shootings that are updated every hour on the hour. This is just a method of saturation used to bring all of the sheeple into lock-step and march them off the cliff to serfdom. All that is truly necessary for the government to succeed is for the people to remain silent or give in to their demands. We could more than likely make it another thousand years without the creation of one more new law. What we really need is simply for the government to enforce the laws that are already on the books, not create new ones. All we truly need is to be proactive as a society.
We place armed guards everywhere in our society today where something of value to us is possessed. We have armed guards in our banks to protect our money. We have armed guards at our Smithsonian Museum to protect the artwork. We have armed guards at our military installations to protect our equipment. We have armed guards at the CIA and NSA to protect our secrets. We have armed guards at the Federal Reserve and Fort Knox to protect our gold reserves. So, here is my question: Which of the above is more valuable to us than our children? Absolutely none of them. Then, why not immediately place armed guards in our schools? We do not need new laws to place restrictions on gun owners but rather, what we need is common sense.
Just think of the jobs that would be created if we placed at least two well-trained, certified armed guards in all of our childrens’s schools over the next 30 days. But more importantly, think of the security and piece of mind that our children and parents would benefit and not at the cost of even one of our constitutional rights.
editorial footnote: We respectfully ask that if you use this piece elsewhere, please source the author and this website by name and please place a link to this article. Thank you.