RUTHFULLY YOURS

After seeing the latest football games, Americans should play Monday-morning quarterbacks and not stand on the sidelines while the players are kneeling. The players are making a sham of the National Anthem by insulting the flag, the nation, those serving, and those who have served, as well as the police, who run into a crisis instead of away from one.

A recent CBS poll reports that approximately 60% of Americans are against kneeling. In another poll, 34% said they are less likely to watch NFL games because of the Anthem protest. Ned Colletti, the former Dodgers general manager, in his recent book, The Big Chair, said it best. Although he was speaking of the troubled summer of 1968 and about baseball, the quote could easily be applied today while substituting football for baseball. He said, “Baseball remained my bed-rock, my refuge from the real-world realities that were all-too-uncomfortably closing in.”

American Thinker also asked those who have served how they felt about the players kneeling.

William was in the U.S. Navy and wants the athletes “to stand and place their right hand over their heart during the anthem, not raising their fist in the air. They act as overpaid and pampered prima donnas.”

Mike, who works for the VA, wants “everyone to watch this link. Few of the participating NFL players can articulate their grievances and willingly or unwittingly promulgate a false narrative about American societal injustices. This is residual from the Obama-Holder years. Incontestable. Incontrovertibly. Privileged athletes must find more constructive ways to express grievances without offending those who support them with dollars, especially those who served and families who paid the ultimate price.”

Val, a retired Air Force colonel, is against the player’s actions. “This is not the time to protest. It is a time to show respect for the nation. Generally, employers do not allow their employees to protest during working hours, and it should be the same in the NFL. Besides, it violates the NFL rules, and players should be fined for this.”

Val has a good point, considering that the NFL’s Game Operations Manual specifically states, “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking[.] … It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country.”

Michael, a Marine combat veteran who fought in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968, feels that the National Anthem “should not be used as a tool and the athletes should find another way. I want the athletes to understand that you signed for millions before you even played a single down of professional football. But someone who enlisted in the Army, as a combat-tested sergeant, will be paid $32,000 per year. You will drive a Ferrari on the streets of South Beach. They will ride in the back of a Blackhawk helicopter with ten other combat-loaded soldiers. You will sleep at the Ritz. They will dig a hole in the ground and try to sleep.”

It took 72 minutes for Las Vegas police to respond to the shooter. How can response time be cut?

Terrorists, whether domestic or foreign, organization-based or truly lone wolf and unconnected, all have important advantages favoring the success of their attacks: they can exploit the multiple vulnerabilities that exist in civil society (notwithstanding whether the terrorists operate in democratic or authoritarian states), and time is on their side.

Terrorists exploit shock and time.

There is not much that can be done to remove shock from the equation. A terrorist with a gun, a bomb, a knife or a truck can wreak a lot of havoc. Shock can paralyze potential victims and make it hard for law enforcement to go after the perpetrator.

In Israel, practically every adult has military training, and many Israelis are armed. While successful attacks have occurred (bombings, shootings, vehicle attacks, and knifings, to name some), the advantage Israel generally has is rapid reaction based on the simple fact that armed citizens know what to do when a terrorist attacks.

Most of the rest of the world is different. A police presence can help, but even then, in certain scenarios terrorists can be effective. Security guards can also help, but very often they are the first target of an intruder in a building or facility. In June 2009, a white supremacist 89-year-old James Wenneker von Brunn entered the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC with a rifle and killed Museum Special Police Officer Stephen Tyrone Johns. Other guards shot at von Brunn, who was wounded and apprehended.

A very important component in terrorist incidents is how long it takes for law enforcement to react and to neutralize the attacker. In Las Vegas from the time 911 was sounded to the SWAT team destroyed the hotel room door where the shooter was took 72 minutes. This gave the shooter ample time to use his ten guns, even reloading some of them while killing 59 people and wounding some 500 others.

Las Vegas has well-trained SWAT teams. Why then did it take 72 minutes?

The same question can be asked in countless other examples, whether the Bataclan night club in Paris, the 2002 Nord-ost siege in the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow, the Virginia Tech Massacre in 2007, the Washington Navy Yard attack in the NAVSEA building in September 2013, the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, or the Pulse Nightclub shooting in June, 2017.

In almost every case the problem amounted to a “time” problem.

The time problem consists of the following issues: (a) trying to locate a shooter and (b) attempting to reach the shooter and neutralize him (or her).

The mind boggles at the horror of Las Vegas, where Stephen Paddock perched himself in the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay and sprayed bullets into a crowd of outdoor concertgoers in the worst mass shooting in American history.

If this slaughter of innocents were an act perpetrated by a foreign power, the U.S. military retaliation would begin immediately, and rightly so.

The impulse to act to stop the domestic massacres that have become a heartbreakingly metronomic feature of American life is laudable and understandable. “It’s time,” as Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy said, giving voice to the sentiment, “for Congress to get off its a– and do something.”

The problem is that the “something,” namely all the usual gun-control proposals, isn’t well-suited to stopping mass shootings. But liberal politicians never let the inapplicability of their proposals stop them. The passion with which they advocate for new gun-control measures is inversely related to their prospective efficacy.

The go-to proposal is universal back-ground checks, although the perpetrators of mass shootings usually haven’t been adjudicated and therefore have passed background checks, as Paddock did in purchasing at least some of his guns.

He had no history of mental illness, and people who knew him didn’t report any bizarre behavior. He had no criminal record, beyond a minor violation years ago. He didn’t even have politics that anyone was aware of. ISIS is claiming responsibility, but the FBI says it hasn’t found any evidence of a connection. His brother seemed sincerely dumbfounded and called Paddock “just a guy.”

No enhanced background-check regime, no matter how vigorous, would have stopped him from purchasing guns.

Hillary Clinton immediately singled out so-called silencers, or suppressors. “The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” Clinton tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make it easier to get.” This conjures an image of the killer shooting down people with a gun impossible to hear, a conception straight out of a James Bond movie.

In a piece on Republican-supported legislation to make suppressors easier to acquire (it currently requires a long approval process and purchase of a $200 tax stamp), the Washington Post notes that one of the devices would lessen the sound of an AR-15 to 132 decibels, or comparable to “a gunshot or a jackhammer.” In other words, a rifle still sounds like a gun even with a suppressor.

If Hillary cares so much about the issue, she might take ten minutes to learn something about it, but gun-controllers tend to be low-information advocates.

Congressman Seth Moulton will be boycotting the moment of silence for the victims of the Las Vegas mass shooting. It’s not just NFL football players who take a knee during the anthem. It’s also Harvard grads who like to announce that they were “approached” to run for President of the United States.

The NFL’s millionaire racists are taking a knee to protest America. But why protest a moment of silence for the victims of the worst mass shooting in this country’s history even if you, like some lefties, think they’re a bunch of country-music listening, Trump-voting Republicans who don’t deserve any sympathy?

If you can’t stand for the anthem, can’t you at least stand for the innocent victims of a monstrous killer?

But, Moulton, like many Democrats, will instead take a knee over the bodies of the Las Vegas dead.

According to Moulton, he’s protesting in support of gun control and demanding, what he calls a, “universal background check”.

“There’s a lot of evidence that shows it would reduce the chances of crimes like these,” Moulton insisted. While all the facts aren’t in (and that hasn’t stopped Moulton or Hillary Clinton), but the evidence does show that the killer’s only previous brush with the law was a traffic citation.

How was a background check supposed to stop a guy with nothing in his background? Ask Moulton or Congressman Chris Murphy, who right on cue, is bringing a background check bill back.

Moulton and Murphy don’t know. And don’t care.

Congressman Moulton is however obscenely eager to upstage a moment of silence for the victims of the Las Vegas shootings to get 30 seconds of attention from CNN. And then maybe a gun control donor with deep pockets will ask him to run for the White House. Walking out on the victims of a brutal massacre is a small price to pay for winning the heart of a big billionaire donor like Michael Bloomberg.

His disgusting behavior isn’t an aberration. A number of Democrats, including Moulton, have boycotted previous moments of silence by staging publicity stunts for gun control. After an Islamic terrorist carried out the Pulse massacre in Orlando, Democrats boycotted it and then disrupted the aftermath.

When Paul Ryan asked that, “the House now observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the terrorist attack in Orlando”, Democrats began walking out.