September 22, 2018

Gun Protest: Who Said Totalitarians Had to Be Intelligent?

Protesters targeted the Kittery Trading Post in Kittery, Maine over the weekend seeking to get the store to stop selling “assault rifles” (whatever those are) and to limit the age of those wishing to purchase a rifle. As gutless totalitarians, many of the protesters don’t know which end of a rifle a bullet goes in and comes out but that didn’t stop them from displaying not only their ignorance of guns but of the Second Amendment – another example of people eager and willing to destroy all their remaining government-appropriated rights.

According to Maine Public, one protester said the Second Amendment was intended to protect muskets – uh huh! And another said, “I think if everyone wants to be entitled to a musket — fine.”

That’s about as brilliant as Susan Collins stating that Roe v. Wade was settled law but by her actions tells us the Second Amendment is not. BRILLIANT!!

If we were to use the same misguided totalitarian logic then: Everyone is “entitled” to say whatever they want so long as it is only those restricted words I want them to speak; How about everyone is limited to owning just a Toyota Prius – after all, you don’t NEED a bigger, better, car with more features, etc.; And we are protected from illegal searches and seizures unless the government decides otherwise or a group of protesters demand something else. This nonsense can go on forever but it is impossible to reason with misguided nuts who refuse to understand the truth about guns – or the truth about rights for that matter.

Recently we learned from a new study that in countries where guns are common, the rate of violent crime goes down and that guns are NOT the cause of violence – a lost society is. So then, why are we not protesting in support of a change in our society? Why are we not protesting to stop the violent music and video games? Why do we promote decadence in our society, dragging members of this culture into a cesspool of immoral behavior, lying, cheating, stealing, anger, hatred, etc.?

The answer is easy. These protesters have been brainwashed, propagandized, and made void of common sense reasoning (by design) and they actually believe what they are doing and saying regardless of truth. And if you talk with them, they will angrily tell you they hold the real truth – everything else is a lie.

A bit of A Clockwork Orange going on.

 

Share

A Gun Study Nobody Will Talk About

U.S. News & World Report reveals, “Half of all global deaths from gun violence occur in six countries in the Western Hemisphere, according to a new study that exposes trends in fatal shootings, particularly in the cause of death.” Topping the list in the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation study are Brazil, the United States, and Mexico.

Yet one of the more interesting results of the study is that the U.S. actually ranks 30th in the rate of homicides with guns, which, given the prevalence of firearms in our nation, flies in the face of those claiming that more guns cause more violence. The trick to ranking the U.S. second overall is suicides. More on that below.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Montana Governor Bullock Wants Semiautomatic Gun Ban for America

Op-Ed by Gary Marbut is President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association

Montana – -(AmmoLand.com)- Montana Gov. Steve Bullock’s comments came in response Sunday to a question posed to him on CNN’s State of The Union.

Host Jake Tapper asked Bullock if he would support an “assault weapons ban, a ban on some forms of semiautomatic weapons.”

Bullock answered, “You know, I would, Jake.”

Some people depend for success on being able to fool others – swindlers, con men, fraudsters, and too many political climbers. That applies to Montana’s Governor Steve Bullock (D-Montana) who is term-limited in Montana but now grasping at the straws of national office.

In order to get elected to statewide office in Montana, Bullock had to claim enough support for the Second Amendment to fool some swing voters. If he had not successfully asserted support for gun rights, he would not have been elected to any statewide office in Montana.

We are now informed by Bullock himself that he lied to voters to get elected Governor. He has only as much respect for the Second Amendment and the Constitution as is needed to get elected to the next public office on his quest. With his new aspiration to become President, he has abandoned all pretense of supporting the Second Amendment and conveniently argues for wholesale gun control. Bullock’s only perspective on Montana at this point is through his rear view mirror.<<<Read More>>>

Share

When Man-gODS Determine Risk Protection

Florida is one of the fascist states of America who passed a law that allows law enforcement and the courts to determine when someone might be a risk to themselves and others. As part of that law, central government’s police (police state) for no reason other than someone made a determination will enter your home or violate your person and confiscate your gun(s).

According to Guns America, Pinellas County in western Florida has assembled a 5-man confiscation team at the Sheriff’s Office.

What could possibly go wrong?

But they and nearly every American alive today have it ALL wrong. The Pinellas County Sheriff is quoted as saying, “It’s a constitutional right to bear arms and when you are asking the court to deprive somebody of that right we need to make sure we are making good decisions, right decisions and the circumstances warrant it.”

Not very reassuring…unless you are a fascist or a totalitarian in which case you are eager to give up all your freedoms in order to further empower the central government, which, by the way, doesn’t give one iota about your freedoms or rights.

This is insanity!

In case you have forgotten…and most have…the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There is nothing in there about risk protection orders and other “reasonable” amendments to a God-given right to self-protection. This government and the people in it are so perverted in all sense of common sense and decency have it all backward. When it comes to murdering babies, the law is “settled.” When it comes to a right, unquestionably defined within the Constitution, the law is unsettled and ever-changing to meet the growing power grabbing of a fascist government (Fascism ALWAYS precedes communism.)

But don’t misunderstand. This Risk Protection Order doesn’t just target the Second Amendment. Florida already has attacked so-called free speech – something America abandoned several years ago and nobody has caught on yet.

So, if a sheriff and/or a judge somewhere doesn’t like what you said and thinks that statement is putting SOMEONE or SOMETHING “at risk” then all rights are abandon and any guns will be confiscated…by brute force evidently. Bring in the Confiscation Team and let’s kick some ass!

One attorney is so ignorant of a person’s right to self-protection that in her defense of a client labeled “at risk” because a judge didn’t like what they said, believes the law needs to rewritten so that it only targets gun owners. Who needs enemies when you have stupid lawyers?

There is no hope!

The Pinellas County Sheriff says “he understands the constitutional rights that are at stake here.” NO HE DOESN’T!! He understands nothing. All he understands is that as head of a law enforcement organization that exists within a police state, he is eager to have more and more power to knock the people down and tread on them.

These risk protection orders are nothing but smoke and mirrors because this perverted, immoral society does not want to address the reasons why sick people desire to go out and kill other people.

There is no hope!

And we can also thank the many faux Second Amendment groups who have pushed for this fascist rule. May they have the new laws shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.

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

Dick’s Sporting Goods Doubles-Down on Reduced Gun Sales

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

CEO Admits Alienating Customers, Says It’s “Fine”
Shareholder No Longer Shops There

Pittsburgh, PA / Washington, DC – Dick’s Sporting Goods reaffirmed its decision to end certain firearms-related sales during today’s annual meeting of its shareholders. A shareholder activist challenged corporate leadership about putting anti-gun advocacy ahead of the needs of its customers and its investors. After the meeting was over, Dick’s CEO Ed Stack said it was “fine” if the shareholder never shopped in his stores again.

The National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) – the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – confronted Stack and other company leaders about the company’s recent decisions to stop selling AR-15 rifles and certain accessories as well as to raise the age limit for gun purchases from 18 to 21 years old. These changes were made after the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida. The company also reportedly hired lobbyists to promote gun restrictions. 

“The management of Dick’s Sporting Goods shot itself in the foot by catering to the fanaticism of the gun-grabbers,” said National Center Vice President David W. Almasi, who represented FEP at today’s shareholder meeting in Pittsburgh. “Stack seems to believe that most customers support the company’s politicized retail strategy, but he has also acknowledged that these decisions could harm shareholders’ return on investment. This is irrational and irresponsible, and I don’t consider it a sustainable strategy.”

Noting that the company puts itself at risk with its high-profile stance on guns, Almasi said:

Mr. Stack, you knew the risk of these political moves from the start. During your March 13 earnings call, you admitted: “There are just going to be some people who just don’t shop us anymore for anything.”…

Sales are so anemic and relations with gun manufacturers such as Mossberg so poor right now that you’ve even indicated Dick’s might get out the gun business entirely. Meanwhile, Sportsman’s Warehouse reports that their gun sales and net sales were up 15% during the first quarter. That company credits consumer backlash against companies such as Dick’s as partially responsible for its success.

The company is willfully giving up money. It has damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, even while the vast majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment. Thirty percent of American adults own guns, and another 11 percent live with someone who does. You’ve now alienated them…

Stack admitted Dick’s change in gun-related sales “did alienate some gunowners,” but insisted that “we’re not going to change” the policy and that “we as a company and a board stand by our decision.” Almasi then warned Stack that Dick’s new policy could mean “the hunters won’t be back. The supporters of the Second Amendment… won’t be back.”

The full text of Almasi’s statement and question, as prepared for delivery is available here. Audio clips are also available of Almasi’s question and Stack’s answer.

After the close of the meeting, Almasi approached Stack to discuss the issue further. Stack terminated the conversation when Almasi questioned Stack’s assertion that the gun policy was about corporate concern for child safety. Almasi asked why, if the company was concerned about child safety, the stores continue to sell football gear despite the risk of head injuries and brain trauma.

On his way out of the room, Stack asked Almasi, “I suspect we won’t see you in our stores?” Almasi answered: “Probably not.” Stack replied: “Fine!”

“When Dick’s alienates gunowners and their supporters, those people won’t just stop buying their guns at Dick’s – they also won’t buy hunting equipment, coolers, jackets or golf clubs at Dick’s. They will tell their friends to shop elsewhere,” Almasi added. “It’s a poor business model to offend a group as motivated and organized as gunowners. It’s also not wise for a corporation to oppose a basic constitutional right.”

FEP has raised the issue of gun rights several times this shareholder season. It challengedBank of America CEO Brian Moynihan over the financial institution’s decision to sever ties with certain gun manufacturers. It also challenged United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz about the reputational risk of breaking off its relationship with the National Rifle Association (NRA). In addition, FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq. recently wrote in The Federalist that “[c]orporate America has become the muscle of American liberalism,” explaining how liberals are using the business community “to bolster and justify the cause” against the NRA and gun rights.

FEP representatives have participated in 26 shareholder meetings so far in 2018.

Share

Letter to Montana Governor: What Happens With “Reasonable” Restrictions on First Amendment

From Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association:

Governor Steve Bullock
Helena, Montana
Dear Governor Bullock,
Just like you “support” the Second Amendment, we support the First Amendment, but as with you and the Second, we support the First Amendment with reasonable and commonsense restrictions.
Because of these commonsense restrictions, you are no longer allowed to speak on government property, including within 1,000 feet of schools and buildings occupied by any level of government.  That would be just too dangerous.  You are also not allowed to speak in any other public place unless you have a government permit to do so.  Such a permit will only be granted if you have satisfactorily completed an approved training course about how to comply with writing and speech restrictions – how to use your rights safely.
You are no longer allowed to use amplification to enhance your speech, as such amplification is considered to be “high capacity” or “assault speech.”  No microphones.  You are no longer allowed to use any electronic means to write, record, or transmit your speech, since those mechanisms were not yet invented when the First Amendment was ratified.  Being a smart and capable guy, we’re sure you can get by with a pen made from a turkey feather and the volume and reach of your natural voice.
Another commonsense restriction will be what you may write or talk about.  We will have a committee available to review any proposed writing or proposed speech from you, in advance.  This committee will research your past writings and speech, and the proposed writing or speech, looking for any abuse or history of abuse.  If there is any such abuse or history, the committee will not approve your writing or speech.  If you attempt to write or speak without this advanced approval, you may be prosecuted for a federal crime, bankrupted with legal costs, put in a federal prison, and lose all of your rights.  Oh, by the way, Republicans will appoint this review committee.
Oh, and there will be a ten-day waiting period after your writing or speech has been approved by the committee before you will be allowed to share the writing with others or deliver the speech.  You may have composed the writing or speech in a moment of passion, and you may reconsider your intent or language after you’ve had a few days to cool down.
You will be allowed to speak to one person at a time, in a private setting, as long as you do not disturb others and the content of your speech is approved in advance.  And, you will be allowed to write as much as you want, as long as the writing is with a quill pen, is approved in advance by the committee, is reproduced only manually, and is carried only by foot or horse power, all following the ten-day cooling down period.  We will allow so much, for now, because we fully support your First Amendment rights and because we do not wish to be unduly restrictive.
We hope you understand that these commonsense restrictions are best for everyone, for the public good.  You aren’t opposed to the public good and everyone, are you?
If these commonsense restrictions don’t solve whatever problems may be apparent or imagined, we will need to look at other possible restrictions.  We don’t really want to take away your First Amendment, but everyone demands that we solve the terrible problem of First Amendment abuse and solve it now.  Surely we must all bow to the majority of public opinion in this, don’t you agree?
Sincerely yours,
The Public
Share

One Florida Employee Fails to Run Background Checks for Concealed Carry Permits

A story of incompetence, something that is all too frequent in this day and age, leaves a person feeling quite disgusted by as well as distrustful of all of government.

The story can be read here.

However, the author of the report presents a dishonest assessment of what actually took place hoping to make some kind of connection between this person’s incompetence and the shootings at a nightclub and a high school.

From this report, it appears that once it was discovered what the employee had failed to do – run FBI background checks on applicants for concealed carry permits (365) – background checks on those applicants were immediately run using three databases to accomplish. In addition, there was no connection whatsoever between this failure and those prominent public displays of violence but the author evidently felt the need to spice up his report with emotional clap-trap probably in order to sell copy.

An example of irresponsible, emotional journalism.

Share

When Guns Are Banned, Criminals Will Get and Make Homemade Weapons

And so will a lot of other people. As well they will keep many weapons is safe places where they can’t be easily found for confiscation.

Laws don’t stop “honest” people. Why do we insist they will stop criminals?

Link to: How ‘Improvised’ And ‘Craft-Built’ Weapons Kill All Gun Control Arguments

Share

Guns and Past vs. Present Americans

What’s the difference between yesteryear and today? The logic of the argument for those calling for stricter gun control laws, in the wake of recent school shootings, is that something has happened to guns. Guns have behaved more poorly and become evil. Guns themselves are the problem. The job for those of us who are 65 or older is to relay the fact that guns were more available and less controlled in years past, when there was far less mayhem. Something else is the problem.

Guns haven’t changed. People have changed. Behavior that is accepted from today’s young people was not accepted yesteryear.<<<Read More>>>

Share