Dear Friends and Patriots,

I want you to watch a couple of video interviews done since the school shooting in Uvalde TX. The first is Sandra Smith on Fox News Sunday interviewing Mo Brooks. It aired on 30 May. The video is on the general page for the show. If it doesn't come right up, look for it. I recommend you view the video at least twice. When you watch it, listen very intently to the way Smith phrases her questions. Pay very close attention. There are messages there that might reveal some things about Fox, but certainly about Smith. Then pay even closer attention to the way Congressman Brooks deals with the questions. I'll say only one thing about the whole performance—this is the way I think all members of Congress should deal with media. They should never allow an on-camera personality to pose questions that presuppose an answer. They should never allow them to project a false media talking point as a fact within the context of a related question. Congressman Brooks dealt with every MSM tactic I've ever seen used against a conservative guest, and did so in an admirable way. THIS WAS ON FOX! You people who have faith in Fox News—you need to wake up and understand who is who and what is what on that network.

The link: https://www.foxnews.com/shows/fox-news-sunday

Now, go to the link below and watch a video just released where Dana Bash interviews Congressman Dan Crenshaw. I want to point out a few things and compare them with the video you should have just examined with Sandra Smith and Mo Brooks. Note the questions and phrasing used by Dana Bash. Is it me, or does she actually come off less aggressive and progressive in the way she states her questions and responses? Does she seem just a bit less confrontational than Smith? Understanding that Congressman Brooks was faced with a far wider range of questions than were posed to Congressman Crenshaw, how do you compare the ways they answered?

That link: https://www.theblaze.com/news/dan-crenshaw-cnn-dana-bash-guns?utm_source=theblaze-dailyAM&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Newsletter__AM%202022-06-01&utm_term=ACTIVE%20LIST%20-%20TheBlaze%20Daily%20AM

I have a bit of a beef with Congressman Crenshaw's later responses. He needs to learn how to deal with the "weapons of war" characterization. He didn't do that well, and never has. He seeks to differentiate a combat arm from the kind of AR-15 style weapon sold in sporting goods and gun stores. I'm sorry, but that's just him still being too much inside his military head. To state that an AR-15 used by an active-duty troop in a war zone is "mostly used for self-defense" is ludicrous. To then compare the AR-15 to an M-4 is even more ludicrous. It doesn't help make the case that begs to be made. That case is: GUNS DON'T KILL, PEOPLE DO!

Put yourself in the place of a shooting victim for a moment. Do you think someone who just got shot asks themselves, "Did they shoot me with an assault rifle or a MAC-10?" Do you think they would ever ask, "Was that one of them AR-15s, or did I just get hit by a bullet from a Remington 770?" No, you know such questions are never asked by victims who live. They just got shot. What does it matter to them what caliber of bullet or what gun barrel it came from? They want to know, "WHO SHOT ME?" They don't think about what kind of gun was used. They know what matters is who pulled the trigger. That's the truth of gun violence. The gun used doesn't matter all that much, though I admit I'd much rather be shot by a .223 from an AR-15 than to take a hit from a 12-guage shotgun. I would have a better chance of living and recovering. But, you don't know of anyone lobbying to get rid of shotguns, do you? Why? Because even the stupid people know better.

Crenshaw would have done better if he gave a proper characterization of a rifle as "any firearm with a rifled barrel. All else is just style." ALL ELSE IS STYLE! You all get that, don't you? Does style matter to a victim? Is the gun style important to the dead, or are they just as dead when shot by a Henry Golden Boy .22LR as by a .223 from a Springfield AR? The politics focuses only on style, and the purposefully mistaken translation of AR as "assault rifle." AR is an acronym for Armalite, the originator of the AR-16, the first rifle styled in that manner. You all know that. For the sake of those who might not know, my Ruger Mini-14 is just as effective as any AR-style rifle. It's just a bit heavier. But there's no campaign to ban the Ruger Mini-14.

Both interviews also bring up Red Flag laws. Congressman Brooks makes the right points more concisely than Congressman Crenshaw. We already have appropriate laws on the books that deal with the concerns addressed by "Red Flag" laws, and have for many decades. Congressman Crenshaw rightfully points out that Red Flag laws will effectively take property from people BEFORE they do anything wrong, and even before any adjudication has taken place. Under most Red Flag laws, local law enforcement can confiscate arms from a person based on a complaint from a neighbor or relative that a person is a danger to himself or others. REALLY? What if the person and their neighbor have been in a property line dispute for months and the neighbor wants to get an advantage? What if a son or daughter was recently removed as a beneficiary of the subject's will and that son or daughter wants a bit of revenge? I can think of dozens of such scenarios where a Red Flag law could be abused. The essential problem of the Red Flag laws is that they flagrantly violate both Second and Fifth Amendment rights prior to adjudication. Also, just how do you judge the effectiveness of any such law? It can be claimed to be wildly successful, but would it actually be? Would people be smart enough to analyze crime statistics to understand the truth?

Another point that has to be considered is the way our society interacts today when compared to 50 or 60 years ago. We are not the same. Technology, bad governmental policies, and resultant social forces have alienated us from each other in very real ways. When mass shootings are examined, it's almost a general rule that the shooters gave plenty of warning signs before acting. That's been true for numerous shootings—from Columbine, to VA Tech, to the Texas church shooting in Sutherland Springs, to the church shooting in Laguna Woods CA. The same can even be said for most of the terrorist mass shootings of recent decades. Yet all these incidents happened. And each and every time, Democrats blamed guns, not the policies they themselves put into place that have resulted in the very real social divisions that permeate our nation. The onus isn't placed on the general lack of neighborly concern, but on the actual tool used for destruction. It's just true that in each case there was someone who saw and understood—someone who should have acted in a way that could have made a difference. But, that someone always, always failed. In some cases, they decided to mind their own business and not be a concerned neighbor. In other cases, there was doubt about who to inform. In still other cases, a concerned person acted, but authorities dismissed the concern as inconsequential. Everything points to the same issue—we don't have a gun violence problem in America, we have a sick society that needs to change. We need to understand that "tomorrow" holds far fewer answers for our problems than "yesterday" does.

To me, it all comes down to the admonition of Jesus to honor God and love our neighbors as ourselves. Those two Commandments don't seem to be understandable in the context of our modern lexicons. That either changes, or we perish.

We need a wholesale change in the philosophy expressed in Washington. They're killing us with their progressive policies. We need to find ways to change that before it's too late. We don't have much time left.

In Liberty,

Steve