July 4, 2022

Search Results for: second amendment

Conservative Investor Activist Takes Citi to Task for Anti-Second Amendment Stance

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

New York, NY/Washington, DC – After the nation’s leading conservative investor group confronted Citigroup’s leadership over the company’s campaign against the Second Amendment, Citi CEO Michael Corbat implied today that he knows more about business than famed investor Warren Buffett.

Last March, Citigroup and other corporations capitulated to journalist Andre Ross Sorkin’s crusade to get banks and credit cards to limit Second Amendment liberties. Citi announced that it would prohibit its clients from selling guns to anyone under the age of 21 and cease the sale of high-capacity magazines.

“Corbat was unable to defend the company’s anti-Second Amendment stance because it’s indefensible,” said National Center General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project (FEP) DirectorJustin Danhof, Esq., who questioned the bank CEO today. “In trying to say that Citi’s policy made sense from a business perspective, he implied that he knows more than famed investor Warren Buffett about how to run a business. That’s laughable.”

At the meeting, Danhof stated:

Because of the company’s anti-Second Amendment stance, Citi was denied the chance to be involved with a $600 million road project in Louisiana. Furthermore, members of Congress have threatened to cancel Citi’s federal contracts. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) noted, “Citigroup has no business threatening law abiding business owners for exercising their Second Amendment rights. The only reason that Citigroup is even in business today is because American taxpayers bailed them out during the Great Recession.”

So, to be clear – the company is impinging on the constitutional rights of the very Americans who bailed Citi out after you all made a series of poor business decisions. Perhaps you should have just said thank you instead.

Danhof then noted:

CNBC asked Warren Buffett about corporations distancing themselves from the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers and how Berkshire Hathaway would respond to such pressure. Buffett replied: “I don’t believe in imposing my views on 370,000 employees and a million shareholders. I’m not their nanny on that… I don’t think that Berkshire should say we’re not going to do business with people who own guns. I think that would be ridiculous.”

Can you tell us – your investors – exactly how much money we stand to lose because of this decision, and explain why you have this right while Warren Buffett has this wrong?

Danhof’s full question, as prepared for delivery, is available here. Audio of his exchange with Corbat is available here.


“Corbat’s admission that Citi has lost business due to its opposition to the Second Amendment is telling. But it’s concerning that he refused to say how much,” said Danhof. “Investors have a right to such information. Furthermore, he claimed that some new customers came to the business because of its far-left virtue signaling, but he provided no actual evidence to back up this assertion. That’s equally concerning. This proves that Citi made a purely political decision. Unless such a decision is germane to a company’s core mission, corporate America should be in the business of business, not politics. We will continue to push that message.”

The Citigroup meeting marks the fifth time FEP has participated in a shareholder meeting in 2019.

Share

While You Were Sleeping, Congress Further Destroyed Your Second Amendment Rights

AND YOU LOVE IT!!!!

Quietly and with little fanfare, the U.S. Congress stuck a knife in the back of all Americans, something the lying, cheating, bastards do on a regular basis, and stole away even more of your right to own a gun and buy and sell, or even loan a gun. Congress passed HR 8.

We can thank radical progressive totalitarians for this action, an action that was prompted by a government so corrupt for so long few even have enough wherewithal left in them to recognize it. But, it’s not just the progressives to blame. Blame must also be made on those fake claimers who say they are Second Amendment supporters. These are the ignorant fools who are the useless eaters who enable the far Left by supporting “reasonable” destruction of the Second Amendment. How many gun rights advocates (wink-wink) support “Universal Background Checks?” Yeah, check em off. Millions! Rome burns and your water bucket is riddled with holes.

Well, now they have those “reasonable” limits in the form of “Universal Background Checks.”

What HR 8 means in short is that nobody can buy or sell without having the mark of the beast. That’s right. The mark of the beast consists of first obtaining a background check. Keep in mind that you and I have absolutely no control over a background check or the information contained in that check that determines whether or not we “qualify” to buy or sell a gun.

Just wait!

If I want to sell a gun to someone, I must, according to the beast, pay a fee to have a government licensed, government controlled seller first run a background check on the buyer and the seller(?).

There is only one way this can be enforced. The government must keep a registration of all firearms. How else would they even know, until perhaps after a crime was committed using an illegally sold or stolen gun when they checked the serial number, that a gun had changed hands.

What most don’t know and/or choose not to believe is that the U.S. Government ALREADY has a registration of every firearm that has ever been sold by a licensed seller in recent years. What they don’t have, and what they really want, are the serial numbers attached to a person’s name of all those guns that have existed for a long, long time and have never been registered. How else can they confiscate them all when the time comes? HR 8 helps to accomplish that task. (Think about what powers the president has been given through the Defense Authorization Act when a National Emergency has been declared. Oh, wait. I forget. You’ve never read that have you. Probably never heard of it either.)

But the biggest question of all is just exactly what is this going to do to prevent all those violent crimes scared servants are fearful of? The answer is it is going to do nothing except further prohibit anyone from honestly owning a gun and having the ability to do with it as one pleases.

Supporters of these “Universal Background Checks” buy into all the lies and false promises made about how you can “gift” a gun to a family member or loan one to a friend for hunting, while choosing to disregard the fact that government, yes, your filthy, disgusting, dirty, rotten, lying, cheating, stealing, government, controls every aspect of your ability to own and/or sell a firearm. This makes them tyrants. Tyrants I said, and the very reason the Second Amendment was crafted was to make sure no tyrannical government can ever turn you and I into the slaves we have become. Too late now!

But you don’t see that do you. If you did, we wouldn’t be to the point we are now.

I hope you continue to enjoy your slavery to YOUR tyrannical fascist government. After all, this is all “reasonable” isn’t it?

Oh, by the way. The link above will take you to the text of HR 8. But I know you won’t even take 10 minutes to read it because you don’t care. You either support it blindly or reject it blindly. So, what else is new.

SHEEP! Baaaaaah…Baaaaaaah…Baaaaaaaah

Share

Second Amendment Quote Worth Sharing

In regard to Maine’s Senator Susan Collins, described as “a socialist wrapped in a Marxist inside a fascist,” who refuses to vote to approve any Supreme Court nominee who might disapprove of Roe v. Wade, the following comment:

“This fool actually believes that Roe is settled law but, the Second Amendment is not.”

Share

What If The Second Amendment Was Repealed?

“What would that be like, the repeal of the Second Amendment? Would it markedly transform our way of life? Would acts of unspeakable violence cease? Would civility and compassion return in our deeply divided country and troubled culture? Would discipline of children return to homes? Would there cease to be drug use and mentally troubled individuals? Would there be a return to moral values in a country that is so adrift? Would sex and violence stop being promoted in television, movies and video games? Would our citizenry be held accountable for its own behavior? Would there truly be consequences for lawlessness and would the rule of law mean something?”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Historic Perspective on the Second Amendment Does Little to Stop Mincemeat Making of It

I found Mark Alexander’s piece published at the Patriot Post to be one of the better attempts at explaining the historical background of the founding of the Second Amendment. This piece also includes information from what is described as an expert on linguistics who, it is claimed, understands the use of words and the structure of the Second Amendment at its birth to deliver an unquestioning description of what it meant.

What does this historical perspective actually do that is going to stop what is being described as  “Deconstruction and Repeal of the Second Amendment?” My short answer would be, nothing really.

Whether it is believed or not that the Second Amendment or any other amendment cannot be “amended” matters little when you give what’s been happening an honest assessment. Alexander writes, “Given the preeminent status of the Second Amendment and the growing chorus of leftists calling to amend it until they can rally enough populist support to fully repeal it, we should be clear that our Founders never intended for this right to be infringed.”

Well, what does that mean precisely – to never be infringed?

A dictionary defines the word infringe as: “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).” and “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.”

In referencing the Online Etymology Dictionary for the word infringe, we find this: “mid-15c., enfrangen, “to violate,” from Latin infringere “to damage, break off, break, bruise,” from in-“in” (from PIE root *en “in”) + frangere “to break” (from PIE root *bhreg- “to break”). Meaning “encroach” first recorded c. 1760. Related: Infringedinfringing.”

The American Language expert says that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted to the people by this Amendment to the Constitution – that it reaffirms the assumption that there is no question of a person’s God-given right. He is directly quoted as saying: “The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional..”

When the expert was asked to present the Second Amendment as it might appear if it were written today, he writes: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”

It is interesting that he chose to replace the word “infringed” with “abridged.”

A dictionary defines abridged as: “shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.” and “curtail (rights or privileges).”

The Online Etymology Dictionary tackles abridged in this manner: “c. 1300, abreggen, “make shorter, shorten, condense,” from Old French abregierabrigier “abridge, diminish, shorten” (12c., Modern French abréger), from Late Latin abbreviare “make short,” from Latin ad “to” (see ad-) + breviare “shorten,” from brevis “short, low, little, shallow” (from PIE root *mregh-u- “short”).

Abbreviate is the same word directly from Latin. The sound development that turned Latin -vi- to French -dg- is paralleled in assuage (from assuavidare) and deluge (from diluvium). Of writing, “shorten by omission,” late 14c. Related: Abridgedabridging.”

Puzzling to me, after this author goes to such lengths to substantiate the exact meaning of the 27 words of the Second Amendment, he would write that there have been no successful attempts to “infringe” on the Second Amendment. He writes: “Historically, there have been no successful attempts to modify the Second Amendment’s assurance of the innate rights of the people to defend their Liberty, but there are now threats to do so.” This was followed by: “That notwithstanding, Second Amendment rights have most certainly been subject to much alteration by judicial misinterpretation and outright activism.”

Is this author suggesting that he is willing to accept those “reasonable” limits on a right he just finished defending as one that is clear-cut, unamendable and shall NEVER be infringed, disregarding all these actions as not infringements? I don’t get it! Isn’t this a direct contribution in and of itself toward the “Deconstruction and Repeal of the Second Amendment?” Many of the same people all aghast at the brazen attempts of late to destroy the Second Amendment fully support putting more and more restrictions on a right this author just described as one that was intended to never be changed. Isn’t this contradictory and perhaps even insane behavior? I’ll say it again, I don’t get it!

Upon examination of the word “infringe” and the American Language expert who might change that word to “abridge” if he was attempting to rewrite what the Second Amendment said in 1789 and how it might be worded today, how can any real supporter of the Second Amendment be willing then, with a God-given right that the Founding Fathers stated as unalienable and “shall never be infringed” see every hurdle in place in order for a lawful citizen to keep and bear arms, as “no successful attempts to modify the Second Amendment?”

What then is the purpose of having the Second Amendment or any other amendment if it can be amended without amending it and infringed upon without infringing upon it?

I understand that probably the author is attempting to delineate between court rulings and other legislative actions that place limits on the Second Amendment as being different than actually changing the wording of the Second Amendment or a complete tossing of the Amendment into the garbage.

Offering all this glamorous historical perspective on what the Founding Fathers meant and what the words and phrases at the time meant is certainly interesting, but so long as the Congress and the Courts can simply ignore any and all of the Amendments and make them into what they damn well please, while Americans applaud their efforts, what good is understanding what any of the Founders meant?

Isn’t this just more of the same of Congress exercising their powers of Article I, Section 8 “To make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

This is easily interpreted to mean Congress will do just as they damned well please. You lose!

Paper documents worthy of nothing I’d say!

Share

National Support the Second Amendment Rally

Share

Stevens’ Call to Repeal Second Amendment Caps a Career of Judicial Subversion

There are some very good points and interesting data in this article.

“Recognizing the dangers of “pure democracy” mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. Stevens knows that. His ignoring it is a motivated choice.

“What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without probable cause and a legal warrant. We can’t torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself from incarceration after being afforded full due process protections, we cannot strip you of your right to keep and bear arms.”

If the position of your argument is that the Bill of Rights was, in fact, written for “we the people” and not “We the People,” the author of this piece says that what has happened over time is a failure of the Government to uphold the Bill of Rights and therefore that same Government and its judicial representatives (former in this case) try to tell us that such guaranteed rights are nothing but relics of the past.

Yesterday in my article I brought that point up: “It would seem that when ideology, and in particular, political ideology, doesn’t care much for certain bills of rights, the call is to repeal them or demand “reasonable” limitations. Perhaps if the Second Amendment hadn’t become so bastardized from its original intent and the people were actually allowed to keep and bear arms without infringement from any other source, there would be no calling out by some of the people to repeal the Second Amendment in an attempt to rid this nation of private ownership of arms. On the same token, if all the other Amendments had not been so muted and muddled, that protection of rights might be worth fighting to save.”

I am reminded of one time as a child I watched in amazement as a childhood buddy made a hole in is PF Fliers. After the hole was cut, he took his finger and began ripping the hole bigger. I asked him what he was doing and he said, “My mother doesn’t think my sneakers are old or that I need a new pair. So, I’m making them old.”

For some, there is little that is more pleasing and exciting as a new car. If you fail to take care of it and keep it running and in good mechanical condition, it too, becomes a relic.

Share

It’s What’s Wrong With Those Pretend Second Amendment Advocates

I tire of reading and hearing idiots say that they might realize groups like the NRA and the NSSF aren’t perfect but they are better than nothing. Are they? Is it better to be slowly eaten to death by ants than to just have it over with in an instance? The end result is going to be the same.

Perhaps some don’t want to talk about the realization that all of these fake Second Amendment groups are no different than any other group – they’re in it for the money. Yeah, that’s right. It’s the money stupid.

You see, groups like these can’t be real supporters of the Second Amendment because there is not so much money in it. The broader the base of their support the more money. So, instead of simply standing up and saying I have an inalienable right to choose how I will defend myself and my property and that choice might involve a gun, a hatchet, a golf club, or a Bible, they appeal to where the most money is. You know, those “reasonable” limits to what God gave you even before you were born?

They want your money…period!

Do you need more proof? Or is it more comfortable to just pretend they are on your side? Your choice.

Today the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) sent out an email asking that you contact Florida Governor Rick Scott and ask him to veto the recently passed bill that demolishes your inalienable rights and those granted to you by your government.

Yesterday I reported on the passage of SB7026, a bill that would place your mental status in the hands of some government agent who is, perhaps, more insane than you are. This bill would rebuild the school in Parkland where the latest shooting took place – I suppose to make sure to remove any evidence that might incriminate the bastards who actually did the shooting. In addition, insane propagandized automatons are going to “educate” more and more of you to teach you how to rat someone out you might think is mentally deranged because…GASP… they own a gun.

If you are in favor of this fascist government deciding whether or not you are insane, then you’ll love the idea that this bill gives YOUR heroes, the cops, more power to confiscate your property because some fascist/totalitarian has determined that you shouldn’t possess a gun. I’m sure while they are taking your guns, they’ll pause for a moment and gun down a few of you who they THOUGHT was armed and dangerous. You and 9/11 created them.

And there’s more, much more but I won’t bore you with such insignificant details because I know you don’t care. Trust your heroes!

So, back to the NSSF. They ask members/readers to contact the Florida governor for a veto because of the age restriction included in this bill. The new law raises the age to 21 as a minimum age to buy a gun. With that and a 3-day waiting period, what’s to complain about?

The NSSF writes: “The National Shooting Sports Foundation supports measures to increase school security and ensure that the mentally ill and prohibited persons are unable to obtain firearms; however, we strongly oppose any proposal to increase the age from 18 to 21 for the purchase of long guns. Raising the minimum age to 21 to purchase a shotgun or a rifle for lawful purposes is an infringement on the constitutional rights of young adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In the United States, you are an adult when you turn 18. Your constitutional rights are fully vested, including the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms. This unconstitutional age-based gun ban would deny young adults their right to self-protection.”

Evidently, they are NOT, I repeat NOT, supporters of the Second Amendment or your right to be able to defend yourself how and when you choose. To the NSSF, evidently, all they care about is the age limit of when you can buy a gun. Is that because this would severely cut into the profits of the gun manufacturing industry who are probably heavy supporters (give gobs of money) to groups like the NSSF and NRA? Don’t tell me you never thought to that.

They tell us they support school security and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (they discount themselves of course) but instead of reading and listening to the lying, cheating, frauds in the Media and from these political groups, why not take some responsibility and go read the damned bill that just passed. There’s nothing in it that will do any of what they say they support…nothing! But the rhetoric and talking points of the bill appeal to a broader base of people = more money, more money!

Upon discovery, an honest person would then ask why is the NSSF only speaking out asking the governor to veto the bill because of the age restriction? Why aren’t they asking that the entire bill is vetoed and never brought up in the Florida Legislature or any other legislature in this country? It’s because if they did, they would lose the financial support from all those who simply love to give the government all their rights and turn them into meted-out privileges. Got to think about the salaries and retirement benefits.

If the NSSF and the NRA whittled their membership down to only the true understanders of inalienable rights and government-issued rights, there would be virtually nobody left to pay their big salaries.

Oh what, you thought it was only those Leftist (wink-wink) groups that paid out big salaries to help do the bidding for the Government? Ha!

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m pretty much completely fed up with the country and the world in general. I’m fed up with morons who thrive on their own efforts to hang themselves, to whittle away at their own existence, incapable of thinking beyond the end of their modeled noses. Soon Artificial Intelligence will tell them when to wipe when they are finished…you know what.

There are zero reasons to place an ounce of trust in any man-made government…ZERO, ZERO, ZERO. And yet, it’s exactly what you do. I just don’t understand.

But forget about what I say and write. You know better than I do. You have come to love and trust your servitude. Now live with it. Don’t look for me there.

Someone one day asked me what I had to fear because I supported the Second Amendment. I told them they had it all wrong (which is typical). I fear nothing. I have no reason to fear anything. “For the Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want….”

It’s not so much about my love affair with a gun or guns. I worship but only the True Yahweh who gave me a long time ago, real liberty, real freedom, and real rights. For now, I have to live in this world and as long as I do, I will do what I can to expose the wrongs, the fraud, the corruption, the evil, the Satanic, and protect those rights given to me by my Creator.

If my words have offended you that’s too bad. I would rather that you woke up than went down with the ship you are on.

None of us can protect our rights when we work so hard to give them all away.

I just don’t get it.

 

Share

Jerks in Florida Pass Ridiculous Anti-Second Amendment Bill in Knee-Jerk Fashion

Reinforcing the fact that people refuse to react unemotionally or learn anything from history, has reared up in Florida where legislators crucified the Second Amendment, my inalienable right to self-defense, gave out of control cops more power to confiscate guns from somebody they might not like, and placed power in the hands of government and government agencies to decide if someone is “mental.” What could possibly go wrong?

Perhaps such fascist idiocy on display in Florida is the result of the fascist idiocy on display in Washington where lying, anti-gun President Trump said he supported taking away people’s guns and worrying about Due Process later.

All of this brings rushing back to me H.L. Mencken’s quote: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” Need I remind readers that our local, state, and federal governments are made up “the American public?”

A total of $700 million dollars in funding is included in this fascist move with $470 million going to mental health issues alone. Briefly, the new law, unless vetoed by the governor, includes possible arming of some in schools – restricted to a very limited number and of those who might be eligible; establish a 3-day waiting period for the purchase of any gun; outlaws “bump-stocks” (and I doubt seriously they even know what one is); and raise the minimum age to be able to buy a gun to 21.

And I have to ask, HOW IN HELL DOES ANY OF THIS STOP OR SLOW DOWN MASS SCHOOL SHOOTINGS?

For those interested in the 105-page fascist bill that just passed 67-50, you can find SB7026 at this link. 

Share

Second Amendment Creation Was a Racism Event

If you choose to read this article – I neither encourage nor discourage it – consider what the author says in full. After reading it, come back and reread the below that I copied and pasted from the article. Perhaps you might agree that in the author’s explanation for the “need” of the Second Amendment, it is substantiated by all the claims that he makes in attempts to vilify it, even resorting to place racism at the foundation of the Second Amendment.

Is the author suggesting that it wasn’t until AFTER the United States formed a government military that we were no longer free and secure? I don’t think the author sees what he wrote in this manner but consider what he did say. It would be my opinion that this author is one who “trusts” his government and turns to his government for all his needs. When that is the case, then how he presents his case is from the position of what he was taught and how he has chosen to live his life of servitude.

If his claim is true that the real reason for the Second Amendment was to prevent creation of a professional army, i.e. the law enforcement branch of the Government, because giving government the power over the people historically proved the loss of being free and secure to the people, then this author misses his own point or errs in presenting a poor one.

Perhaps he is blinded by his own anger and hatred.

Preventing the United States from starting a professional army, in fact, was the single most important goal of the Second Amendment. It is hard to recapture this fear today, but during the 18th century few boogeymen were as scary as the standing army — an army made up of professional, full-time soldiers.

By the logic of the 18th century, any society with a professional army could never be truly free. The men in charge of that army could order it to attack the citizens themselves, who, unarmed and unorganized, would be unable to fight back. This was why a well-regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state: To be secure, a society needed to be able to defend itself; to be free, it could not exist merely at the whim of a standing army and its generals.

The only way to be both free and secure was for citizens to be armed, organized and ready to defend their society. The choice was a stark one: a standing army or a free nation.

Share