May 25, 2019

Maine’s So-Called “Red Flag” Gun Bill Proposals

On Tuesday, May 28, 2019, Maine’s Legislative Subcommittee, Criminal Justice and Public Safety, will discus 5 so-called “red flag” gun control bills. Here they are, including my comments, with links so readers can go read the proposals instead of listening to the B.S. always associated with controversial law proposals.

LD 379 – An act to protect children by requiring the safe storage of loaded firearms.

As will all bill proposals the title often is misleading or leaves out tons of important information. This proposal is of no exception.

It’s a terrible bill and will do very little, if anything, to protect a child. The proposal, as written, should be an embarrassment to whoever is responsible for crafting it. It includes all of these very gray areas that leave decisions about determining whether a person is in violation of law up to someone’s perspective and whether or not it can be “perceived” to perhaps cause a safety issue.

For example, it reads that a person is guilty of unsafe storage of a firearm if: “The person knows or REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW that a child is LIKELY to gain access to the loaded firearm without the permission…..” (emphasis added)

The majority of the bill is utter nonsense that does nothing to protect children and everything to UNREASONABLY prohibit the exercise of a person’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The only part of this bill that should perhaps be considered is punishment for any adult who stupidly leaves a loaded gun laying around unattended.

LD 533 – An act to eliminate the statutory duty to retreat and affirm the right of self defense.

Such a bill proposal would not be necessary if there was actually a constitutional right or a natural right to self defense. States that have similar laws, sometimes called “castle doctrines” have all sorts of trouble with this law, mainly because, once again, the courts evidently can’t or don’t want to make a determination from evidence obtained whether a person was justified in killing or causing bodily harm to someone attacking, threatening, etc.

LD 810 – An act that would require background checks for all private firearm sales or transfers except family members.

Another bill that is of utter nonsense. This is a blatant and 100% disregard of a person’s right to keep and bear arms and a right to buy and sell one’s property as they see fit. Any person who owns a firearm should be able to sell that firearm to anyone they wish. What a person does with a firearm after purchasing that firearm, is not the responsibility of the seller.

This requirement will do absolutely nothing to stop anyone wishing to commit a violent crime. There are laws against committing violent crimes and those laws do nothing to stop a criminal or a person with criminal intent. Add this proposal to all the others that are nothing more than a total disregard and in disrespect of the Second Amendment and a person’s unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

LD 1099 – An act to reduce suicides and violent crimes by requiring a 72-hour waiting period after the sale of a firearm.

No where in the Second Amendment or for any other “right” guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, is there a 72-hour waiting period in order to exercise that right. Such a requirement does not reduce suicides or prevent violent crimes. This is nothing more than totalitarians forcing their desired way of life onto others.

LD 1569 – An act to prohibit untraceable and undetectable firearms.

LD 1569 is hogwash!! In the proposal it states that the Legislature determines that untraceable and undetectable firearms pose a “danger to the residents of the state.” The question should be, in what way are they a danger? Guns don’t and never have been responsible for killing anyone or causing them harm. There is ALWAYS somebody on the other end of a gun that does the act. That person, if their intent is to harm or kill someone, is a mentally deranged person – made that way by a perverse, immoral society. What are we doing about that? Oh, I thought so.

Banning guns that do not contain a traceable serial number and/or are made from a material that cannot be detected by metal detectors does nothing to alter the mental deficiency of anyone bent on killing or harming other people.

This proposal will only enhance the already unlawful act of firearm registration.

There are a couple of comments I wish to add to this entire slate of totalitarian gun proposals. The first is that there has never been any discussion or bill proposals that would address why a person or group of persons are of the mindset to harm other people. This will never happen because it would interfere with the immoral, decadent lifestyles these totalitarians want to live. They like it and don’t want to lose it.

Secondly, in some of these proposals there are exceptions to the prohibition of gun rights handed out to licensed firearm dealers and law enforcement personnel, including some private security guards. I want to know why the legislators think that law enforcement personnel and licensed gun dealers are above committing violent crimes against the citizenry? We know cops will gun down innocent people all in the line of duty. Should we then, if we want to be a society that measures and restricts every act of freedom and liberty, be giving carte blanche to law enforcement and licensed gun dealers who are equally susceptible to carrying out violent crimes as the next person?

I am shocked at the ignorance on display in the written words of these gun control bills. It is a reflection of the poor and manipulated “education” (brainwashing) taking place in our institutions and within society as a whole. All that is left is doom. We happily dig our own graves.

Hang on!

Share

SAM’s Compromise Gun Bill That Isn’t a Compromise That is a Compromise

Nonsense is coming from David Trahan in a notice sent to Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine members that although he is working on a compromise to a proposed “Red Flag” gun control bill that will determine whether somebody ought to be denied access to guns because of someone else’s perspectives on their behavior, he is not compromising our rights given in the Second Amendment. The bill is question is LD 1312.

In his notice sent to members, Trahan says that he has been working with Governor Mills administration to “…determine whether there was a way we could improve Maine law to better identify individuals in crisis and honor our individual liberties as it relates to due process and the constitution.”

Perhaps the best way to “improve” Maine’s law in regards to making a determination as to whether a person is in “crisis” is to stop pretending to act like a god. Whether a person is in “crisis” becomes a value-weighted determination based upon somebody’s perception determined by perverted, post-normal societal values. What could possibly go wrong. When somebody, living in La La Land thinks that a “LAW” can be created or amended that would “honor our individual liberties”, etc, reveals the ignorance of what freedom is all about. Any LAW is a direct restriction on any and all freedoms and cannot coexist with thoughts of “honoring” individual liberties.

Trahan somehow finds comfort to know other false gun rights groups have joined in the discussion to further restrict and water down gun rights.

Trahan assures members his efforts at a “compromise” is not a compromise to a “Red Flag Law.” What’s the difference. Anyone wishing to compromise any portion of the Second Amendment is not a friend of the rights of any individual.

The executive director of SAM is asking members to trust him: “…that your leaders are protecting firearm owner’s rights and your best interests,” and that when he is finished with his compromise that isn’t a compromise, “Maine people will be pleased.”

I have little confidence that he or any others working to compromise my gun rights away are looking out for my best interest. To think that any person or group of persons can equitably determine whether another person is in “crisis” and do it in any fashion that is within the scope of a person’s rights, not just gun rights, is unrealistic and fanciful thinking. It is, perhaps, the greatest tragedy of a person’s rights when others, equipped with political and personal ideologies, attempts to determine the condition in which another person is capable of exercising rights or should be removed from the normal activities of society.

Who in the hell do we think we have become?

Is it that we now believe that employing the evils of democracy we can, while instituting our own twisted, post-normal societal values, determine the fate of others while claiming we are protecting our rights?

Geez!

Share

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

Oregon Wants Your Guns And To Make You A Criminal

It’s coming! I’ve predicted it in the past. It’s only a matter of time when the blinded totalitarians, under the spell of fascism, will have all your guns rendering you helpless to counter the tyrannical rule and death already planned for you.

The State of Oregon is deciding on a bill, that among a warehouse full of anti-gun measures, includes one that would make the owner of a stolen gun accountable should that gun be used to commit a crime. That’s right. Welcome to the Soviet Union of American Totalitarian States. And not only that, but if you legally sell a gun to someone else and that gun somehow ends up in the hands of a person who commits a crime, you will go to jail.

In my mind there seems to be a catch. However, I’m quite confident that if this is not added to the bill before a final vote, it will be only a matter of a short time when another law will be passed that will require (make mandatory) the registration of ALL guns.

It is impossible to enforce the law proposed to make gun owners liable for crime if a gun is stolen or lost, unless that weapon(s) is registered with the state. How else can they trace the weapon? Unless, of course, you are dumb enough to report it stolen or lost, complete with serial number, etc.

As I understand this proposed bill, gun owners would be given 72 hours to report a lost or stolen gun. This reporting MIGHT release them from liability. However, there are so many complicated scenarios that a person might be brought up on charges for, chances are you will be charged with a crime anyway. The goal here is to criminalize you and/or get you to get rid of all your guns…FEAR!!!

If you have already “registered” your weapon, you really are left with no choices. Registered weapons do not necessarily fall under the formal act of filing a form of gun ownership. If you purchased your gun through a licensed gun dealer, your gun is registered. If you bought your gun with a credit/debit card (Mark of the Beast/Image of the Beast) your gun is registered. If you bought ammunition with a credit/debit card, essentially you have alerted the state that you own a gun of that caliber. It’s nearly impossible to get around it.

My advice to you is that if you own guns that were passed down or you bought in a private sale, do your best to hide that fact from anyone.

The fascists are going to get your guns. It’s only a matter of when.

Charge on oh totalitarian imbeciles!!!

A Bag of Rocks comes to mind.

Share

Night, Night Hunters

I have just read an article on one of my favorite outdoor sites, Sporting Classics Daily.  The article was titled, “Conservation Funding and Firearms” by Craig Springer, External Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Southwest Region.

I first read this article when I was in high school (over 60 years ago) when I was memorizing articles by Robert Ruark, and every item and its cost in the Herter’s Catalog.  Today, it has been perverted into propaganda meant to seduce any awareness in hunters, state wildlife agencies and hunter’s organizations about what is happening to hunting and this once-proud program, the Pittman-Robertson Excise Tax on Arms and Ammunition.  Whether you think this article to be a simple oversight, ignorance, a bid for a bonus or a bona fide deception: I leave to you.

While the article was true those many years ago and properly whetted a young man’s imagination and energy toward hunting, shooting and possibly a job one day: today the article is a stale clip of a bygone era and a glimpse of how it is being used by that herd called “The Swamp” with their Hidden Agendas running amok.  It details all the money collected and disbursed to State wildlife programs (the only beneficiaries, supposedly, of the funds) by law.  It chirps about putting “gas in a biologist’s truck” and “bobwhite quail traps in Oklahoma” giving the impression that the increased funding does as much or more than it did for Dad or Grandpa – nothing could be farther from the truth.  The funding source itself, the use of the funds and the goals of the modern wildlife bureaucrats, both state and federal, being paid by the Excise Tax dollars are such today that a good case could be made that hunters and Rural America would be better off without the program entirely.  Other than serving as one more good reason (of many) why the 2ndAmendment must be protected and preserved; the wildlife benefits to hunters and Rural America are, to quote Ross Perot describing the loss of jobs to NAFTA, “a giant sucking sound” off in the distance.

Let me describe some of the ways this once great program has been savaged and distorted:

1.    In the early 1990’s, Congress refused a Request from US Fish and Wildlife Service to authorize and fund the capture of Canadian wolves to release in the Rocky Mountains.  When Congress refused, USFWS clandestinely “took” (stole is a better word) $45 to 60 Million from the funds and released wolves into Yellowstone National Park (from which they spread in every direction).  Leftover funds were used to open a USFWS Office in California that Congress had also refused to fund; and to give bonuses to USFWS managers involved in the illicit funding uses.  When a GAO Audit revealed the misuse of the funds to a US House of Representatives Committee, after a flurry of activity ala Lois Lerner et al, the responsible USFWS managers went on to be Directors and high-paid Executives of environmental lobby groups.  The state wildlife agency Directors that along with you, me and the state wildlife programs never asked for the money to be replaced.  I suggest that not only was this a visible flame 20 years ago of the advanced degree of corruption corroding the state/federal/radical groups “Complex” to use Ike’s term: it was a clear signal to others like ATF in Fast and Furious, Lois Lerner in IRS, and the FBI/Federal Intelligence network in the past three years to, “do what you want, nobody gets in trouble anymore”.

2.    The program has been diverted into a quasi-preservation effort of government force on behalf of animal communities that while not in any trouble should get as much attention as game animals according to New Age wildlife “professionals”.  Think of it as a sort of socialism for critters wherein Excise tax (and license revenue) is forcibly taken from the management of those animals that “have” and given to those animals that “have not”, somewhat like a progressive tax scheme that will ostensibly make everyone “equal”.  To say that game animals and hunting have not suffered greatly in this “Robin Hood-like redirection of the Excise taxes generated by Arms and Ammunition Sales” is simply an ideological rejection of truth and facts. This was made possible by some federal/state wordsmithing of regulations almost 30 years ago that no one, not even the NRA saw fit to oppose.  Words like “game” were simply transformed to “wildlife” which in a legal sense covers a multitude of sins.  When I read Mr. Springer’s piece I looked to see how he would handle or avoid this fact.  At the end of his long list (first written 60 years ago) about mule deer, bobwhite, et al; the last phrase was, and “habitats restored benefiting multitudes of organisms”.  Yo, anyone awake out there?

3.    The Excise Tax funding and the License Revenue have been increasingly diverted in almost half the states and growing in recent years into Lawsuits, depredation Complaints, propagandizing incidences, denying the reason moose and elk (and their hunting) are disappearing, teaching kids prevarications about predators and generally concocting nonsense for public consumption like, “the wolf that attacked the young man had a ‘deformed brain’” and “the moose season is closed forever because of climate change” (as though moose failed to adapt to eating coconuts and mangoes) because of forcibly imposed federal wolves laughingly called “Endangered” or “Threatened”.  This all costs millions of Excise Tax and License Revenue dollars that are purposely under-reported by unaudited state and federal agencies.  My estimate of the under-reporting (as a former National Wildlife Refuge Operations Chief, Program Coordinator, Program Analysts and wildlife biologist) is that the state and federal agencies only report 25-30% of the costs and thereby minimize any signs of hunters and Rural Americans waking up to what is going on like Rip Van Winkle.

4.    The current scam to further drain Excise Tax funding and dwindling hunting License Revenue is for the federal government to “Return Wolf Management” to the States.  This is a comedy skit in more ways than one.  Forcing wolves back into states where they were purposely and at great expense exterminated over a century ago and calling it “Returning Management” is reminiscent of the man that killed his mother and father and then threw himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan.  In other words it takes a certain amount of chutzpah.  States will now be expected to “Maintain Wolves”; answer depredation calls; pay (?) compensation; explain why game is disappearing without using the words “predator” or “wolf”; tell dog owners to keep their dogs in or on a leash or expect a wolf to kill or (in certain cases) to mate with them; fight lawsuits; and pay for pre-determined research to explain why neither they nor the wolves are responsible for the ensuing chaos and safety concerns of Rural Americans from hunters to hikers, campers, birdwatchers, kids at school bus stops and older ladies walking to rural mailboxes or outbuildings.  This means MORE Excise Tax Revenue and MORE of the dwindling (for reasons of human safety and disappearing game) Hunting License Revenue diverted not only away from game but to expand an agenda meant to do away with game, guns, hunting, ranching and a vibrant Rural America.

5.    How many of these USFWS do-gooders are explaining that more gun controls and ammunition quotas will seriously defund state wildlife programs?  Where are the state wildlife agencies and their political overlords spreading the same truths?  Where have you seen any explanation of what all this diversion of funds is doing?  Or what wolf management or non-game handouts are taking from hunting and game?  What is the alternative after most game hunting Revenue is gone?  When gun and ammunition purchase, importation and use is all but obliterated.  Will we just close down the state agencies and simply have a federal wildlife authority funded from General revenue?  For what purpose?  Will states just start paying for the “biologist” and His/Her “truck and gas”?  Why would anyone spend anything on deer or ducks or grouse? Why would anyone spend money on frogs or snakes?  Where would any money come from year after year after year?  When the wolf kills the dog or the grizzly bear kills the camper who does what in an unarmed Rural America?  How?  Who is responsible?  Who has the answer?

This could be longer but my fingers are getting tired.  I just opened my window onto a fine spring day to hear the reporters working on the Excise Tax/Hunting License Revenue issue; the future of state and federal wildlife programs; and the role of predators in our brave new world. I listened for the Hunting, Dog and Livestock organizations fighting gun and ammunition controls, wolves and federal grizzlies.  I cupped my hands over my ears to hear the bureaucrats speaking out for the 2nd Amendment and what needs to be done about dwindling game animal populations.  I leaned out to hear the state and federal politicians fighting for hunters, ranchers, dog owners and Rural America (what’s that, they sound like their cheering for the environmental extremists and animal rights radicals?)  I tried to hear the honest scientists advocating sensible predator management, game animal use and management, and the establishment of compatible wildlife communities that enhance human rural communities rather than discouraging and diminishing them.

But, all I heard were crickets and besides, I am tired of reading 60 year-old articles about how good things are going out there so I might as well take a nap too.

Jim Beers

26 March 2019

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC.  He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands.  He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC.  He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority.  He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting.

You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:   jimbeers7@comcast.net

If you no longer wish to receive these articles notify:  jimbeers7@comcast.net

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

Putting Firearm Safety Instruction Back in the Schools

David Trahan, executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, pens his thoughts on why Maine schools should put firearm safety instruction back in schools as a regular part of its curriculum.

Trahan writes: “When I was young, living in Clinton, firearm safety was taught in our town hall.  When hunting season came in the fall, I would carry my shotgun to class, where I would turn it over to my teacher, who would return it at the end of the day.”

Evidently I am a bit older than Mr. Trahan. When I was in school (high school) gym class included a few days dedicated to firearm safety. Class included bringing your gun to school and the teacher taught EVERYONE about proper use and safe handling. I remember practicing with a fellow classmate the proper way to climb over a fence with a rifle whether alone or with someone.

We did not, however, hand our guns over to the teacher until the end of the day. We either put them back in our cars or stored them in the gym locker until after school. We didn’t even consider it necessary to lock up the car or the locker. In those days there was enough respect that you wouldn’t steal and somewhere existed the thought that stealing a gun would likely put your own life in danger when caught.

Things have definitely changed and along with those changes is a loss in the ability to think and reason. Everyone had a gun. Everyone used a gun. Nobody feared for their life because their neighbor owned a gun. Guns were an integral part of life. And on top of all that nobody went around killing other people because they were screwed up in the head.

Essentially the gun has not changed in all these years. What has changed is the culture in which we live. It is immoral, perverse, and abusive to say the least. Our culture breeds violence. Violence is in our music, movies, video games, and books. It saturates all electronic devices. Violent games are rabidly promoted and targeted toward the youth of this country. And yet, in our brainless existence we think we can cure the problem of gun violence by banning the gun. Along with this call for banning, we see and hear other calls for “sensible” restrictions, background checks, banning styles of weapons (like if we ban “assault-style” weapons, like the kind our children learn to use in video games where killing is a measure of success, problems will go away), and an array of other absentminded solutions and never once uttering a claim that something is wrong with the culture that causes the violent acts in the first place.

Not that firearm safety education would be a wrong thing to do, but if we are truly seeking a stop to preventable violence, gun safety instruction, like most “sensible” laws, only target the lawful citizens.

By all means bring gun safety instruction back into all schools. But don’t be fooled into thinking it is a cure for the real issue nobody wants to discuss honestly.

Share

Can We Make Schools Safer By Using the Same Totalitarian Demands for More Government Control?

*Editor’s Note* – This is not an attempt at discrediting David Trahan. He does great and useful work with the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine. He is to be commended and applauded for the effort he puts in to right wrongs and carry out the wishes of the members of SAM. In my work, I work tirelessly attempting to cause people to see the wrongs, the insanity of how we have been programmed to operate. As a result, I may come across as harsh and/or unfair to some. It is not my attempt to attack the person but to reveal and address truth and to cause people to think for themselves by giving alternative or additional thoughts to a problem.

In a second effort at addressing gun control and public safety, David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), pens another article to address school safety. You can read Trahan’s first editorial about “Red Flag Laws” and my comments here.

Trahan writes: “…policy makers and Americans have not focused on coming together to institute universal security changes at all schools capable of stopping or minimizing the success of future attacks.” Huh? What does that mean, if anything?

What are “universal security changes?” Are they anything like “universal background checks?” Why are they called universal? In this context is the word used as an adjective or a noun? Are these actions “universal” because any oppressive laws were devised by a group of like minded people? Or do these same laws have an effect on everybody? Perhaps both. If so, maybe it is more correct to state that we have failed to come together to “institute universal, universal security changes.”

Regardless, the statement sounds more like a politician who refuses to give an honest answer with any meaning.

In this same article, Trahan explains his previous attempts at addressing school safety by formulating groups to conduct “studies” as well as creating a task force that will listen to complaints and examine recommendations from these “study” groups.

Useless!

None of that worked and so it appears the solution is to try it again and change the name a little bit.

Isn’t it insanity to think that you can fix a rigged system by working with the rigged system to fix the rigging? A system is rigged because it doesn’t want outside interference. In order that any government entity can continue to operate within their rigging they must learn how to continue to fool the people into thinking something is being done. An example of that might be just what you are seeing here – a call for “universal” security changes. Even Trahan tells readers, “…because most of the report was made confidential in an effort to protect vulnerable schools, we have no way of knowing whether our schools are safer…” How convenient, but that’s how rigged systems continue to operate.

He also writes: “They should be directed by the Government Oversight Committee to examine statewide whether we have adequate school security.”

Ah yes. That “Government Oversight Committee.” Ah yes. The insanity of it all. Government anything is a corrupt useless existence of nonsense. Let’s completely remove government interference and then maybe something constructive could happen. The insanity shows itself when people lament the curses of government and then in the next breath cry out to the same government demanding an answer. Isn’t this the product of the Hegelian Dialectic – create a problem, embellish it, and rush in with an answer? Ah, brainwashing! Isn’t it also a full display of cognitive dissonance – the inability to understand and relate rational thought in making decisions? Ah, programming!

I’ve written often about how so-called Second Amendment supporters make hypocrites of themselves when they actively seek “reasonable” restrictions to a granted right that has no restrictions. In their arguments to support the right to keep and bear arms, they always fall back on the theory that gun laws only limit the law-abiding citizen and do nothing to stop violent crime. And yet, they disregard that same philosophy when it comes to things like school safety. Are we to believe that in this instance laws designed to make schools safer, that is for the law-abiding, will only affect the violent criminals that might enter a school and do harm?

Perhaps if we exerted as much energy into addressing the real problem in this perverted, violent, immoral society to end the needless violence, violence that is grown and perpetuated in this out-of-control society of progressives who seek more decadence and immorality, then much of what totalitarians, disabled by cognitive dissonance, are now attempting to do would become unnecessary. But that’s never been the American way. The American way is to somehow try to find a cure for the symptoms so that they can continue, uninterrupted, carrying out their indecent and obscene lifestyles.

But, it will never happen that way. So, all you people who know not what you do, you keep working hard at getting those “UNIVERSAL” changes that are going to make everything better.

I think creating concentration camps was a “universal” change.

Share

“Red Flag” “Extreme Risk Order” Gone Wrong

What could possibly go wrong? That was the question I asked the other day when I wrote about so-called “Red Flag” laws designed in principle to stop crimes before they happen…yeah, right.

Since that writing we have had an incident in Maryland where police went to a man’s house in order to “execute” a “Red Flag” order and ended up executing the man instead of the order.

In addition, there is a case in Vermont where hearsay and emotional nonsense resulted in an “Extreme Risk Order” being carried out in which police executing the order went to a man’s house, not in anyway involved in a supposed plan to cause harm but because he was a relative, and owned firearms, confiscated all of his firearms, which incidentally were locked up inside the home.

This gives us some ideas of “what could possibly go wrong.” To some the intent is good but the execution stinks. Are we now so damned strongly delusional that we can justify the taking of one man’s life thinking we MIGHT be protecting the life of another? Evidently.

It should have been proven over and over again that forcing a ban on guns of lawful citizens and/or taking those firearms away does nothing to get at the root problem of why there is violence in our society. Instead, it creates more crime. Are we to believe and accept that when law enforcement personnel are carrying out their orders, the loss of life and/or the suspension of one’s rights is in order because of hearsay and unwarranted suspicion? Is this what President Trump meant when he said to hell with Due Process. Are we to arrest the “bastards” and then ask questions later? If so, welcome to the corporation of police states, or perhaps you like the word fascism better, carried out by willing totalitarians brainwashed to think they are doing the right thing.

What could possibly go wrong? And yet, we still see so-called Second Amendment supporters clamoring with Leftist totalitarians to do “reasonable” things, like the destruction of the Bill of Rights, all in the name of public safety.

Go ahead. Support those “Red Flag” laws. Then sit back and enjoy your own created furtherance of slavery and oppression.

Share

“Red Flag” Laws Are More Than Asking a Judge to be Clairvoyant

David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), writes in his latest column that “Red Flag Laws” ask our judges to be clairvoyant, to predict what someone might do if they had a gun in their possession.

The issue here is that when someone deems, from their own perspective, that a person might be a danger to themselves or to other people, should have their constitutional rights – in this case the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – taken away from them forever or until such time as a judge or others think that right should be restored.

What can possibly go wrong?

The mindset in this post normal society of immorality and social decadence, is that a person is incapable of being responsible for their actions. While this may be partly true when comparing times of the past with those of the future, such irrational thinking is based upon fear and ignorance.

Where once people minded their own damned business, today the trend is to get into the face and affairs of others, especially when another person is operating from a position of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that disagrees with the accuser, i.e. that person willing to file a petition to have another person’s rights stolen from them.

Isn’t the biggest of all questions in this regard, who is going to become ruler of the chicken house? I’ve been around the block a time or two and there exists virtually nobody involved in politics/law enforcement (they go hand in hand), or even health and mental health professionals, who should be trusted to make any kind of judgement as to whether a person is deemed dangerous to themselves or to others, short of the obvious lunatic.

Trahan points out (in a different articles) that laws designed to steal a person’s Second Amendment rights are unique only to the Second Amendment where it is being required to take some kind of “competency” test before you can exercise a right. The argument is often that, in this case, a Second Amendment right can cause the death of a person. So what! Any honest person can tell you that all rights can, directly and indirectly result in bodily injury, mental injury, and sometimes death.

Guns are singled out and always have been. They are singled out because of the mind control and manipulation of all things in this totalitarian/fascist country to keep the masses scared to death, forcing them to call upon more government to keep them safe. The remarkable insanity of this approach is that people call upon the most corrupt and hypocritical organization that exists in the world today, to keep them safe and to protect them. It shows what a fantastic job these fascist bastards have done, when once we were taught that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure the tyrannical pond scum of governments would not take from us our rights.

Strong delusion prohibits people from seeing such a basic concept!

At the end of Trahan’s piece he writes: “One of the important lessons I have learned is that the underlying causes of domestic violence, mental health problems and suicide are far more complicated than just taking away a gun.

Furthermore, advocates know best how to address these issues. Instead of trying to find more sophisticated ways to justify a new law that runs counter to our fundamental constitutional rights, I suggest bringing these groups together, with lawmakers and state leaders, to examine these issues in a much more comprehensive and cooperative manner.

It seems like a better approach than relying on laws that ask judges and law enforcement to predict the future.

It is of political necessity for public servants to make statements about “bringing groups together,” but in reality, this post normal existence has moved far beyond any pragmatic approach to solve societal problems. Such approach always results in diminished rights.

So where does that leave us? Simple. Trahan already points out the existing laws that deal with those who choose to use violence. These so-called “Red Flag Laws” are a most dangerous act that places god-like responsibilities into the hands of some in whom I wouldn’t entrust the care of my chickens. Seriously! Do you want some scum-ball politician or incompetent, agenda-driven, crooked judge deciding what’s best for you?

Fear and ignorance of guns leaves a person with irrational hallucinations. And yet I recall the aftermath of the Boston Marathon when people lined the streets watching and applauding as law enforcement, without proper due process of the law, went door to door, sometime busting down doors, pointing weapons of mass destruction at innocent people, under the guise of looking for “terrorists.” This is what fear can do for you. That fear is so well engrained into the minds of the feckless masses, they fail to see the truth and importance of the protection of our existence through the total protection of our rights.

No person should be allowed, say nothing of granted, the authority to stand in judgement as to whether any person is a danger to themselves or others, let alone pretending they can predict the future.

The issue here is not the gun and never has been. To declare the gun the problem is as intelligent as saying lips are responsible for what a person says.

Until such time as this society is willing to address the real problems they have created through their decadence, perversion, and adiamorphicism, frantically and irrationally trying to find just one more LAW that will stop a gun from killing someone, it remains the epitome of craziness.

Share