September 24, 2017

Question 3: If What We Are Told is True

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

universalbackgroundcheckIt’s a simple concept…to me anyway, but I struggle to understand how and why others cannot see what is so easily seen. We are told many things. Most people just believe and follow along, making no effort to even ask simple questions.

Maine faces a referendum on this November’s ballot – Question 3. It is presented by the fascist Michael Bloomberg, and his billions of dollars he got by lying, cheating and stealing. Why then should everyone not suspect his law proposal isn’t rooted in lying, cheating and stealing? Carefully crafted (and why hasn’t anyone questioned how the Maine attorney general allowed wording on a ballot initiative that is completely misleading?) the proposed law is presented in the form of a “universal background check.” What is a universal background check? Has it been defined, other than its use throughout media? We distrust media…they say…and yet we blindly listen and follow. We are sold the idea that a universal background check would reduce crime and gun violence. We know it won’t but…well, I shouldn’t say that, because, according to the same media, the majority of the people believe it will. Which brings me to my point.

Whether truth or fiction, we are told that the majority of Mainers (somewhere around 61%) think background checks are a good thing. (Note: I’ve never seen any data or evidence of what people think a background check is, or how any polling question was worded.) Nationwide, this same majority of opinion, is sold to us repeatedly by the press. We already have background checks but liars have successfully convinced enough people that there exists “loopholes” that magically allow the sale of guns to mass murderers.

If any of this was true, then it would seem honest to present a proposed law that would close any, so-called, loopholes that might allow the sale of a gun to someone attempting to skirt the mountain of laws on the books already that are supposed to stop criminal purchase and ownership of guns. Such is not the case. The proposed law is poorly crafted, or done so intentionally, confusing, and goes far beyond any notion of closing loopholes to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Why?

Common sense should lend people to question the real purpose of the proposed new law, but obviously it doesn’t to the majority of people. If Bloomberg and his little minions honestly have a concern about finding better and effective ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and would be criminals, they sure have a dishonest approach to it, where their proposals are only geared to the destruction of lawfully owned guns by law-abiding citizens. Doesn’t that or shouldn’t that raise some question in your mind?

Laws do not work and never have worked for criminals. Every law ever written was designed to stop the criminal but it doesn’t work. Insanely, this society insists that crafting laws, which are nothing other than destroyers of our rights and freedoms, will stop a criminal.

I contend that the Second Amendment should be upheld in the form that it was written…period. Lawful citizens are lawful because they have some semblance of a moral compass. Usually such people need only some guidance and leadership by example. Criminals are criminals…period. Can we ever learn this concept?

Share