July 22, 2019

Monarchy and the American Founding

Share

Hailey Idaho Making More Human Behavior/Action Illegal

Support the city of Hailey Idaho which has a new police enforcement plan that is expected to generate an increase of $50,000 annually in court fines which will hopefully help the city cover 2020s increased expenses. Source, the weekly SUN-July 10-16-2019 Be sure and tell the magistrates you’re being patriotic and supportive of your community because they need the money… See crime does pay. Make everything a crime to help collect more revenue.

Share

Blackstone Just Another Clever Term Smith

Free country? Whatever.. The U.S. corporation is a monstrous fraud…

PERSON and TAXES
June 21, 2019

Person and Taxes

A little primer By The Informer

Public Law 101-508 section 11801 A 45, repealed Subchapter E of Chapter 64. This Statue at Large wiped out all of 26 USC 6361 and all State Qualified Income Taxes in 1990. However, the Regs still are published and this cannot be. This is the fraud the IRS uses. Hawthorne, the leading authority states, “the regulation dies when the statute from which it came from is repealed.”

I would say the IRS has a rather large problem because 301 is administrative operation of the IRS and it does not exist because Congress repealed all statutes in 1990. In doing so it deleted about 600 regulations that the IRS still operates under, illegally.

The Qualified State Income Tax applied only to those sources of income and not the income itself; i.e.; the hamburger sold by Wendy’s is not the source, Wendy’s is the source. If your income came from a private company that private company is not the source because the “qualified tax” is shown in the agreement with the State and the IRS. Within that agreement lists the source as business in a revenue taxable activity.

Section 61 of 26 USC only lists the ITEMS of income which are taxable. 26 CFR 1.861-8 lists the sources of income that are taxable so the state can implement it’s state income tax. Knowing what to look for and knowing it is business you have to go to the 1909 Corporation Tax act to see that all income taxes are taxes on corporations and not on people in their natural physical state, but in their artificial state.

Now that means man, in his natural physical personality cannot ever be taxed. But should that man take on the personality of a “person,” IN LAW, then he becomes artificial and subject to the tax. Taking on that personality of “person” makes him a “resident” and is synonymous with “individual” and “Inhabitant.” This is borne out by the Supreme Court’s defining the term “resident” as being the same as “inhabitant” in the case of United States v Penelope, 27 Fed. Case #16024. The word person in 26 USC 7701(a)1 uses the word “individual” to define the word person as well as other artificial entities like association, partnership and corporation, all of whom are artificial. So how do you know you are an artificial personality or a physical personality in the eyes of “the law?”

Here is a rendition from a book that Paul Burge showed me when he obtained a complete set from the LaSalle Law school. The title is Vol 13,Jurisprudence and Legal Institutions, American Law and Procedures, by law professor James Andrews Albany Law school and Ruskin University. I will quote only portions as it is rather large to reproduce it all. I will not emphasize key words as I have done in the past.

I will bracket my notes in [ ]. Starting with the term “leading.” You all heard that term used in court where the defense or prosecutor jumps up and says “your honor he i s leading the witness.” What is happening is that the witness is being led to believe a set of words or circumstances the defense attorney wants him to believe and the answer from the witness will prove it. So we start in the book with a few passages before Section 64, The legal conception of leading words.

Jeremy Bentham, in his remarks in reference to the inexact use of language by Blackstone in pages 47 and 49 of the Commentaries, says: “When leading terms are made to chop and change their several significations, sometimes meaning one thing, sometimes another, at the upshot perhaps nothing, and this in the compass of a paragraph, one may judge what will be the complexion of the whole context”.

Sec. 64. The legal conception of leading words. Inasmuch as the words person, man, thing, property, rights, wrongs and actions are leading terms constituting the designation of departments of the corpus juris, it will be impossible to obtain clear conceptions of subjects connected with these words until an understanding is agreed upon as to the sense in which these terms are used. If we arrive at the meaning of these words intended by Blackstone and make the same clear, we will have a better idea of his method and perhaps a better opinion of it, and at the same time will be able to show the distinction between the same words in the Roman, the English and in American law.

By now people you should see why the Rule of Presumption is applied in the courts or when you deal with government that YOU are looked upon by the court, government (IRS), NOT as what you think you are and they are applying leading terms to you. I have always said, DO NOT use pro se, or propria persona in any of your pleadings because of the below statements by this professor of law who wrote the best definition of person that you will ever get.

Blackstone apparently uses the Roman word persona as synonymous with the English word “person,” and the latter word interchangeably with “individual” and “man,” whereas he might have avoided all confusion by a closer adherence to that which he professed to follow.

Section 65. The word “person” defined.

Gaius says “De Juris divisione” [the divisions of the law] immediately preceding his division of the law; then follows, “De conditione hominm”[meaning the condition or status of men]. In the Institutes “De jura personarum” precedes the expression “all our law relates either to persons, or to things, or to actions. The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar reference to artificial beings and the condition or status of individuals.

Still want to write in propria persona on your legal paperwork?

Continuing with section 65;

Person and Taxes

The word “homo” corresponds to the English word “man,” and, as the Romans expressed it, “unus homo sustinet plures personas;” i.e., one man has many persons, or sustains many status, or many different conditions (34 AUSTINS JUR., 362)
Austin says: “The term ‘person’ has two meanings, which must be carefully distinguished. It denotes a man or human being; or it signifies some condition borne by a man (35 See Harvard Law Review 101). A person (as meaning a man) is one or individual, but a single or individual person (meaning a man) may sustain a number of persons (meaning condition or status)” (36 Austins Jur., 363). Notice that this meaning is not so broad as that given by Ortolan. It does not include artificial persons.

Again, he says: “As throwing light on the celebrated distinction between jus rerum and jus personarum, phrases which have been translated so absurdly by Blackstone and others,–rights of persons and rights of things, jus personarum did not mean law of persons, or rights of persons, but law of status, or condition. A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested. It is a remarkable confirmation of this that Gauis, in the margin purporting to give the title or heading of this part of the law, has entitled it thus: De conditione hominum; and Theophilus, in translating the Institutes of Justinian from Latin into Greek, has translated jus personarum . . . diviso personarum; understanding evidently by persona . . . not an individual or physical person but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons.This distinctly shows the meaning of the phrase jus personarurn, which has been involved in impenetrable obscurity by Blackstone and Hale. The law of persons is the law of status or condition; the law of things is the law of rights and obligations considered in a general manner, or as distinguished from these peculiar collections of rights and obligations which are styled conditions and considered apart.

A moment’s reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is personality, which we see and by which we are affected.

I never liked Blackstone and his works and now this bears out my beliefs. Sure he led people to believe in freedom when all along he hid words that would show people that the King still ruled America as James Montgomery and I have pointed out. Blackstone is the modern agent provocateur. Further on in this chapter I quote a couple of sentences that make sense of the above and are a kick in the seat, they are;”The Law does not distinguish between men except by their personality.” “By nature all men are created free and equal, i.e. of equal rank, equal rights; but the law does not look upon all men as equal, though the law of the United States all men have equal civil rights. SEE Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 368

“The word “persons” denoted certain conditions of rank or status with which man was clothed by law.” Man clothed by law? Does this make you sick or what?

Knowing this now makes all that they are doing to us, for THEY KNOW the law and don’t tell us, a fraud. A complete unadulterated fraud to deprive us of our personality, rights and all that goes with it. However, everyone who claims to be a sovereign doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about.

Montgomery and I and a few others never call ourselves “sovereign” because there is only one Sovereign and you are a mere subject of His. As I have stated before who are you to call yourself sovereign? Sovereign over what, another man? Then he is your slave and you are no better than those who have taken your rights and personality away by artifice. Ready for Ortolan’s explanation of Personality in section 65? You people calling yourselves sovereigns better start regrouping after reading this entire article.

Ortolan’s explanation of personality. The substance of the above was undoubtedly taken from Ortolan’s treatment of the subject as given in his History of the Roman Law, which is submitted because it is clear and concise: “The word ‘person’ (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man. This word in law has two acceptations: In the first, it is every being considered as capable of having or owing rights, of being the active or passive subjects of rights.

“We say every being, for men are not alone comprised therein. In fact, law by its power of abstraction creates persons, as we shall see that it creates things, which do not exist in nature. Thus, it erects into persons the state, cities, communities, charitable or other institutions, even purely material objects, such as the fiscus, or inheritance in abeyance, because it makes of them beings capable of having or owing rights. In the inverse sense, every man in Roman law is not a person. For example, slaves were considered as the property of the master, especially under the rigorous system of primitive legislation, because they are the object and not the subject of law. This, however, did not prevent the Romans from including them in another sense in the class of persons.

“We shall therefore have to discriminate between and to study two classes of person: physical or natural persons,for which we find no distinctive denomination in Roman jurisprudence except the expressions taken from Ulpian, singularis persona (46 Does this not equal individuals See 10 Harvard Law Review., 101); that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fictitious and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.

“In another sense, very frequently employed, the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say,each quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations-for instance, the person of father; of son as subject to his father; of husband or guardian. In this sense the same man can have several personae at the same time.Here is even more to cause you to say, man now I know why everybody is losing when calling themselves all these leading presumptive terms in law.

Think you are getting the plan of attack organized in your head yet? Here is more to help you and we are still in section 65.There can be found in the Commentaries of Blackstone no definition of the word person, nor any explanation of the meaning intended to be ascribed to the word “person,” and the word is there used indiscriminately in the popular and the legal sense, interchangeably with “man” and “individual,” and also to designate artificial beings capable of having rights.

Boy, wasn’t Blackstone a real bastard for screwing the people at the behest of the King? Well all you people who claim you are the “People” in the Preamble and by golly you want that Constitution at all costs, don’t you. You have a false god before you rather than believe in the True God of the Universe, the true Law Giver. Well after reading The New History of America you cannot disagree, especially after reading the Padleford case, 14 GA 438, but many have disagreed. So with that in mind let us move to Chapter 13, Section 104 of the Law Book. After reading this and you still want to be a preamble citizen or State citizen then that is your choice. So don’t complain when they want all you have and tell you what to do. Ready for the coup d’etat?

Chapter VIII
PEOPLE.
Section 104. The people: Identity.

In the United States the people are brought on the stage as an acting political entity, acting, it is true, always through representatives. As expressed by Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence: “In free states the people form an artificial person or body politic, the highest and noblest that can be known” (1 Wilson’s Works). By “the people” of a state is meant all of the (members) which compose that state and are integral parts of it, together making a body politic (2 Penhollow v Doane, 3 Dall. 55, 93).

[PEOPLE, THIS IS A STRAIGHT OUT ADMIRALTY CASE, IN CASE YOU DIDN”T KNOW AS IT DEALT WITH LAW MERCHANTS, YOU KNOW THEM AS CORPORATE ENTITIES. MEMBERS ARE THOSE WANTING IN ON THE ACTION AND ARE SUBJECTS AS THEY TAKE ON THE PERSONALITY OF PERSON IN LAW AND ARE , THEREFORE, ARTIFICIAL. ONLY ARTIFICIAL PEOPLE CAN BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT BY ANOTHER FICTION (ARTIFICAL BODY POLITIC OR IN OTHER WORDS CORPORATION OF THE STATE OR UNITED STATES. THEY ARE DESCRIBED BY WILSON ABOVE AS MEMBERS OF THE BODY POLITIC AND YOU WILL SEE THIS BELOW AND TOWARDS THE END OF THIS ARTICLE]

The people as a corporate unit form an artificial person or body politic; thus constituted they form a moral person”. “It is this person we call a state.” (41 Wilson’s Works 321- 325: 2 Wilson’s Works 321)” “There is no distinction between the people and the state” (5 Penhollow v Doane, 3 Dall 93).

It must not be forgotten that, in using the expression “the people,” there is a distinction between the population of the nation, as individuals, and the same population organized under a constitution. By “the people,” in this connection, we intend a body politic, a corporate unity. Because of the quality of singleness we may properly use the pronoun “it,” though, this is not usual. It is hard for the citizen to lose sight of the individuals in the body; but correctly viewed, as drops of water lose their forms as drops when they mingle with the whole and become not drops, but one body, even so the citizen in his political capacity loses the civil capacity of (an individual when viewed as a part of that great unit “the people.”

It is the whole mass, and not a majority of the individuals composing it, which constitutes the people, and the people are to be regarded, not as an unorganized mob, but as a corporate unity composing a society (6) This is a big footnot —Jameson, Const. Con. (4thed.), pp. q8, 19, notes: Von Holst’s Con. Law, 48, 49; Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 92.”A distinction was taken at the bar between a state and the people of the state. It is a distinction I am not capable of comprehending. By a state forming a republic (speaking of it as a moral person), I do not mean the legislature of the state, the executive of the state, or the judiciary, but all the citizens who compose the state, and are, if I may so express myself, integral parts of it; all together forming a body politic. The great distinction between monarchies and republics (at least our republic) in general is, that in the former the monarch is considered as the sovereign, and each individual of his nation as a subject to him, though in some countries with many important special limitations. This, I say, is generally the ease, for it has not been so universally.

But in a republic, all the citizens as such, are equal, and no citizen can rightfully exercise any authority over another but in virtue of a power constitutionally given by the whole community, and such authority, when exercised, is In effect an act of the whole community, which forms such body politic. In such governments, therefore, the sovereignty resides in the great body of the people, but it resides in them not as so many distinct individuals, but in their political capacity only.”

[THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I TRIED TO GET ACROSS IN THE NEW HISTORY OF AMERICA. The U.S was established as a CORPORATION in 1787 with all the states already a body of corporate entities of the King. As the People in the Preamble were those already in power and had money,wealth in land and so forth, these were the People mentioned in the Preamble to the corporate bylaws called a Constitution. Only they could vote, if you studied history. You needed so much land or so many pounds sterling to vote. VOTING WAS NOT A RIGHT AND NEVER HAS BEEN. It has always been a PRIVILEGE. For if it a right then even a beggar would have the “right” to vote. Such was not the case. So let me finish off Section 104 after the above long footnote.

There are dicta to the effect that the people, when spoken of in the political sense, means only those persons having the right to vote, that is, the electors; and it is at the same time said that in the electors is vested the sovereignty. Thus stated, the idea does not, as we shall see, properly obtain, and is contrary to the principles of American institutions. Voters are but parts of the machinery of government. In the constitution “the people ” is sometimes used to indicate persons or individuals. So in all provisions in reference to unreasonable seizures and searches. In such provision it is identical with the use in Blackstone.

[Ok, what did you learn in Section 65? You learned that persons and individuals, as just here stated are artificial persons. Men who have taken on the personality as corporate entities and now have no personality as a physical being AS DEFINED BY LAW OF THE CORPORATION.

Gee, how much plainer can it get? Now let us see what happens to this “individual” who is synonymous with “person” because “individual” is used in 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) to define person and that person is liable according to their law because he is an artificial entity. Where is the sovereignty spoken of? There is none in a corporate body politic because all “members” must support the corporation at all costs and the corporation has the right to take whatever wealth from its members to prevent its collapse. Guess what shows up on all “Individual Master Files?” Yup, you guessed it, the first four letters of you name in all caps denoting the artificial man from the physical man. It even says so in the VAL 1 code, that some one else is using the physical man’s SS number.

I wonder who that could be? What personalities are working here? And while we are at it the definition of “Individual” in Title 5 USC 552 (a) (2) is that United States citizen who is a “member” of the “body politic.” They don’t use the word “person” but “individual” which is a word describing “person.” I am now going to go way back to 1990 when I published Which One Are You and quote from page 203. Many people say the book is just as hard to understand as is the code I was trying to make understandable. Those people are those that belong to a group that the Lord said, “There will always be the poor among you.”

Meaning not money poor, but comprehension poor or those that have eyes will that not see and those that have ears that will not hear. Here is the section out of my book that now, maybe, when put beside this article will show what I was trying to get across. You will also see how in Hale v Hinkle the court slides back and forth with the word “individual” by talking about it in the “common sense” and then the “legal sense.” This proves we have to look at those “LEADING TERMS” that I quoted at the very beginning of this article.

“It is an AXIOM that “he who deals with or trusts in government does so at his own peril,” (see American States Report Digest, ‘Bills and Notes’ etc.).So when in doubt, always treat the government as a corporation in a COMMERCIAL posture /environment /endeavor, for “The individual owes NOTHING to the State, for he receives nothing therefrom.” (Hale v Hinkel, 201 U.S. 43), but where that individual becomes involved with government’s commercial activities and actually or constructively receives a “benefit” therefrom, he is bound with no escape (eg. Wickard v Fi lburn,317 U.S. 111), even unto criminal sanctions, (Mala Prohibita remember) attaching to what is substantiallly a “civil” involvement (US Grimaud, 220 US 506; Wickard v Filburn supra), “civil” meaning a “private” or “commercial” relationship or “NEXUS” with the corporate State or United States.

Go back in this book and look for your unalienable rights in the definition of “citizen” and you will find the NEXUS. The United States and States of the Union not only are, but should be considered a commercial corporation and dealt with, with extreme care and such dealings, if at all possible, should be avoided like the plague.”[END OF QUOTE FROM
Which One Are You.]

Oh, let us now venture to section 133 in the professors book and see what that says about that “individual” and if I wasn’t correct back in 1990.Section 133. An individual contracts with a state at his peril. It is now well settled that there is no judicial remedy in favor of an individual against a state to compel the performance of a contract, though it is settled that a state can pass no law impairing the obligation of a contract once made (18 Murry v Charleston, 96 U.S. 432 is an instructive case on this subject).

Well you Preamble citizens, you cannot complain now that you know what you put yourself into. And you sovereign citizens can now see what an oxymoron term that is. And those signing pro per or propria persona will abruptly stop that if you want to retain the personality of that natural physical man that is not bound by your fellow man’s, those artificial persons, laws. I now quote right from my book, for those of you that have not read my book The New History of America, a case that states you don’t have to join their corporate venture.

“When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state.There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.Emphasis added.

By this very principle espoused by the court you cannot be made to “retire elsewhere” because, if anything, you retire from the corporate STATE and live upon the land of the Lord in the geographical place called North Carolina rather than the State of North Carolina. Go back and look at the Hamilton case where they said that you “* * * shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State.” Let them keep their corporate State; depart out of it. Isn’t that what the Bible tells you “Come out of her?” What do you need it for? To continually be robbed by legal plunder? Not that they are going to stop if you do, because maybe, just maybe, the masses will wake up and want out also, thereby destroying the State’s power over you.

What’s the King going to do now? That is why so many of us with the knowledge are demonized by the spin doctors of government, using media to set the masses against us.Peace be with you people in hopes that you will not be poor in comprehension so that you will know the truth, which will set you free. Yea, providing we have enough physical personalities that know what to do against tyrants that just perpetrated their kind from the start of the country.

Sincerely,The Informer

Additional history;

Papal income tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_income_tax

~

WHY DO WE? … PAY PETER’S PENCE –

A statement of Pope Leo III (795-816) attributes the origin of this tax to King Offa. In 787 A.D. the King of the Mercians promised to pay it out of gratitude to Pope Hadrian I (772-795 A.D.) for the Pope’s agreeing to divide the Archbishopric of Canterbury, and establish a new Archdiocese at Lichfield.

There seems some doubt, however, that this promise of Offa to pay such a tax regularly to the supreme Pontiff to help cover costs associated with governing a world wide church, was ever honoured.

Perhaps the effective founder of the tax use, however, King Ethelwulf, who visited Rome in 855 A.D. and promised to pay the tax out of gratitude to the Pope, St. Leo IV (847-855) who had previously received his son Alfred with honour and anointed him King. This Alfred was to become not just King of Wessex, but (in 878 A.D.) king of all England that remained independent of the Danes.

“Ethelwulf went to Rome, when the kingdom was at peace, and there offered the tribute to Saint Peter which all England contributes to today, to Pope Leo IV who before had honourably received his son and anointed him King”. (Testa Regum Anglorum bk. II)

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/whypaypence.htm

Comment.-

Taxes are required to be paid, to be able to put administrative functions (external organization and government) into place, and to also be able to put into place those who are chosen to preside over these administrative functions, inorder for everyone to be governed under the eccleastical laws of the Church, which laws manifest themselves as civil law and international law, (subdivisions of canon law, that are namely, laws applicable to fictitious jurisdictions), or any and all laws found in personally owned private enumerated fictitious territorial jurisdictions, commonly known as countries, including any and all of the descriptive terms that attach to them.

We recollect –

REFERENCE SOURCE:
Pacta sunt servanda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacta_sunt_servanda

Consequently, as a mechanism of the church put into place by it, a brocard, being in the ownership of the church’s Ecclesiastical Rules, makes ‘good-faith’ as a brocard, a primary source of ‘the canon law of the Catholic Church’, by which “the system of laws and legal principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church, [1]”, can be seen to belong to the church as an important conduit of its authority.

Similarly presented, the Catholic Church’s external organiztion and government, being the entities that resort to canon law, otherwise known as Ecclesiastical Law, through which ‘good-faith’ is held by those acting, knowingly or not, on the church’s behalf under the church’s Roman law, manifested outwardly as Civil Law, and acting on its several parts as International Law, in which the good-faith of the church are all found to be in use, provides for the extension of the church’s authority by propagating its laws of ‘good-faith’.

Brocard (law)

We read,

“A brocard is a legal principle expressed in Latin (and often derived from past legal authorities or Roman Law), …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brocard_(law)

Comment.- A brocard being legal principles in the ownership of men in the service of the God of this world through a vast conglomerate of corporations..

Share

Dog and Pony Show at the NRA

Regular readers know my position on what should be a person’s unquestioned right to self-protection. They should also know that that right does NOT include giving the government more control over, not only what I see is never questioned rights (not something meted out by a corrupt government), but how and where I can protect myself and my property.

There’s a Dog and Pony Show going on at the NRA – no surprise to me knowing the make-up and character of the NRA. The executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, has been accused of recklessly spending money for self pleasures, Oliver North was fired as president of the NRA (I guess because he tried to stop LaPierre), and now the NRA’s top lobbyist, Chris Cox, has been fired, perhaps because he was in on North’s attempted coup.

In an earlier writing I posted, I wrote: “…why would anyone think that the NRA is not a part of the so-called, and laughable, SWAMP the uninformed complain about in Washington? It tickles me that ignorant people think a “Swamp” is something new, when in reality “Swamps” have existed since Adam and Eve.”

The “Swamp” at the NRA is bubbling, however, the NRA “Swamp” leadership might be making a huge mistake. They think their do-do don’t stink when it smells so bad it could gag a maggot. The membership is roiling to a point they are ready to abandon ship, but not necessarily because of how LaPierre spends their money, although it is a catalyst.

In all of this smoke and mirrors, this morning I was reading an opinion piece published at Ammoland. The content of the opinion piece was one thing but the comments left after the piece are the canary in the coal mine perhaps.

I certainly have been around the block a time or two and understand that 26 comments left on one website about the NRA is not a scientific barometer of the supposed 5-million members of the NRA. Consider this anyway.

In reading through everyone of the comments left, there is not one comment that thinks the NRA is any longer THE top Second Amendment advocacy group. As a matter of fact, most of those leaving comments stated they are seriously considering ending their memberships and most also are refusing to give the NRA any more money or support in any way.

Consider, if you will, nearly all of the comments left voiced opposition to the direction the NRA has gone; that they are compromising, through negotiations with gun control groups, our Second Amendment rights. They also state that both LaPierre and Chris Cox are together on those compromises, which include supporting “Red Flag” laws and destruction of “Due Process,” pointing out that president Trump supported the ban on “bump stocks” and was one of the first to call out “take their guns away and worry about due process later.”

If these comments are any indication as to how the majority of Second Amendment supporters really feel, the NRA might be in more serious trouble than some think. Also consider that such actions are bound to have trickle-down effects to state and local gun rights groups, sportsman’s groups, and politicians in how they stand on Second Amendment issues.

If we consider the State of Maine for an example, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), along with Gun Owners of Maine, and the Maine Chapter of the NRA, supported and helped write a bill that was passed by the Maine Legislature in recent days, that clearly robs a person of any due process of the law and protection of their rights and personal property.

I was shocked that the leadership at SAM would actually write and support such legislation, to the point I called for the executive director of SAM to be asked to step down by the membership. And, it appears that the SAM board must also go along with this “compromise” Red Flag bill, as there are nothing but crickets coming from Maine’s leading sportsman’s advocacy group.

Is SAM out of touch, just like the NRA? Are all of these quasi or fake Second Amendment groups in serious trouble because the clear majority of Second Amendment supporters are sick and tired of their right to keep and bear arms (shall never be questioned) being systematically taken away one compromise at a time.

I would expect nothing more from big, false, controlled opposition, Second Amendment groups like the NRA. It appears that the NRA’s influence has trickled down to state groups like SAM who have some righting of their own ship to take care of if they wish to survive.

While the ponies circle the ring, I will watch and see what kind of tricks the dogs will do. If one dog does a back flip, the pony might not be where it’s supposed to be and the dog will fall and maybe be hurt.

Share

Maine: New Law One Step Closer to All-Out Ban on Wildlife Feeding

LD 1818, a bill that is supported (and written by) the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), gives authority to the commissioner of MDIFW to limit and/or stop the feeding of deer, bear, moose, and wild turkey, if the commissioner “has reason to believe that the type or location of feed may create a public safety hazard or may have a detrimental effect on deer, bear, moose and wild turkey…”

Hiding behind the threat of Chronic Wasting Disease, LD 1818, goes too far, in my opinion, in granting authority to the commissioner to exercise personal judgement based on their own perspective (a weighted measure) to limit or stop wildlife feeding. LD 1818 was presented as an emergency measure. Unfortunately, the idea of giving the commissioner authority to stop feeding wildlife outside of the presence of Chronic Wasting Disease, does not meet any standards of necessary emergency ruling. This one got away from the legislators…or did it?

It is no secret that the MDIFW has fought against the feeding of wildlife, particularly deer. This newly enacted bill now gives authority to the commissioner to do just that based on the commissioner’s perspective of what constitutes a “public safety hazard.”

Playing around with laws and authority in hopes of preventing or limiting the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease is one thing, but giving a commissioner pretty much Carte Blanche authority to make such determinations exceeds the boundaries of democratic checks and balances as well as a call for “emergency” establishment of law.

Commissioners come and commissioners go and with each successive commissioner, they bring with them political agendas and ideology that may be out of step with the wishes of the majority.

Share

The NRA Is Also a Swamp That Should Be Drained

I have been reading stuff lately that tells me the NRA operations by the upper executives is no different than all other political organizations, all of which lose (or never had) sight of who they are, what they do and supposedly whom they work for. There’s trouble at the NRA.

Like all organizations that become too big for their britches, we discover wasteful spending and corruption, followed by distracting techniques hoped to draw member’s attention away from the dirty laundry.

Why would anybody…no, seriously…why would ANYBODY think that the NRA (National Rifle Association) is somehow immune to all the crap and corruption that we find flourishing in all political, corporate, military groups, etc? And, why would anyone think that the NRA is not a part of the so-called, and laughable, SWAMP the uninformed complain about in Washington? It tickles me that ignorant people (meaning they have no knowledge or background into anything real but love to latch onto catch words and phrases sort of like high school cheerleaders attempting to keep interest and excitement in their events) think a “Swamp” is something new, when in reality “Swamps” have existed since Adam and Eve.

The NRA is a swamp that is kept muddy from the very members and cheerleaders of the political Swamps that head the corruption in Washington and all centers of political interest.

I read an open letter to the NRA published by Ammoland to Wayne LaPierre, head of the NRA present. Oh, but let’s not try to hide anything here. The author of the open letter happens to be: “…an NRA instructor and member of the Los Padres “Friends of the NRA” committee.”

So, what do we call this guy, a Swamplette?

I was also curious about the comments that followed the open letter left by readers. One reader said, “This is exactly what we hate about our elected officials (Congress & Senate)! Enriching themselves at the expense of voters who trusted them.”

I ask the question again. Why should anybody think the Swamp of the NRA is any different than the Swamp of Washington/Congress/White House? When you stop and think (nobody does anymore) about who heads the NRA throughout history, only an idiot would think leadership at the NRA would be any different than leadership in Washington. After all, NRA past presidents, for the most part, have simply moved from political power over to head the NRA. The majority of past NRA presidents have been politicians, political activists/lobbyists, movie stars, high-profile criminals, war heroes, etc. The NRA, in choosing its leadership, looks for someone who is part of the “Swamp” (sorry, nobody really knows what a Swamp is) and of a high profile in order to entice people to join and waste their money on the corruption known as the NRA Swamp. Go ahead. You love to do that.

People actually believe the NRA is independent of Washington and has done so many remarkable things. The writer of the Open Letter even begins his letter by stating that if it hadn’t been for the NRA, “firearms would have been banned…” in the 1990s. Seriously! He wrote that. All bow down to the NRA.

Suppose for a minute that the NRA was abolished, or that due to corruption, members left the confines of the corrupt NRA and headed over to other corrupt gun owner/gun rights groups. I doubt anything would really change, except Wayne LaPierre might not be wearing such expensive suits, but perhaps we might have been able to actually keep more of our gun rights if the NRA hadn’t given them away for political reasons. As the old saying goes, who needs enemies when we got friends like this?

If the “Swamp” is so bad, then why do we shop at the Swamp looking for the leadership for our political fraternities? When the NRA, and other entities, are headed by former corrupt politicians (all politicians are corrupt, that is why they are politicians) why shouldn’t we believe that the NRA is all part of the bigger, corrupt world of politics? Geez, we just don’t get it. We don’t WANT to GET IT!

Oh, don’t act surprised or angry that I should write such stuff about the NRA. Get your heads out of the sand and stop thinking just because you’re a member of the NRA it is actually looking out for your best interest. All they care about is what’s in your wallet and how they can get it away from you. So far, they have been quite remarkable at getting a lot of that green stuff.

ALL Swamps suck!

Share

Due Process IS Damned

Maine is but one example of how, what is left of and thought of as our rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Constitutions of individual States, are being systematically destroyed. This destruction is actually all part of the administering of the Constitutions by administrators/the elected, mostly ignorant and definitely bred to be the good totalitarians they are in order to carry out the wants and demands of the fascists who rule.

Perhaps, rather than state that what is “thought to be our rights under the constitutions” are being destroyed, it is more precise to say that, to some, a revelation of the actual intent of the constitution is being revealed and as such appears as a destruction of rights.

Originally Maine proposed a bill, LD 1312, a precise “red flag” bill that blatantly would ensure that any person THOUGHT to be a danger to themselves or others would be stripped of due process of the law all in the name of someone’s, or group of someones’, perspective as to their mental abilities and capacities – a value-weighted mindset derived by one’s ideology.

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) and the NRA strongly opposed LD 1312 but for some strange reason they took up the cross of the governor and gun control advocates and went to work to devise a bill that would accomplish the same thing but to a lesser degree. They devised LD 1811, a bit whitewashed from LD 1312 but still stripped an accused person of their “right” (or at least a system partially shared by others) to due process. LD 1811, wrongly pares the loss of due process down to a minimum of 14 days but still provides for a person to effectively go on endlessly in “protective custody” and having their private property, which happens to be property thought to be protected under both the Federal and State Constitutions right to keep and bear arms (and shall never be questioned), with many of the meted out rights withdrawn.

It was brought to my attention by a friend that in testimony before the legislative subcommittee the sponsor of LD 1312, the original “red flag” proposal, stated that the intent of the bill was to “get the guns out of the house.” While the sponsors of this bill willingly admit that the bill is intended to take guns away from anyone THEY deem necessary (one law enforcement person and one medical person), it appears as though the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) has approached their attempt at “compromising” with the governor and other gun haters from the perspective of a gun rights proposal with little attention, perhaps due to ignorance, given to the blatant violation of due process and what would appear as a deliberate disregard of a person’s right to not have their property taken away first and at some future point in time administer some degree of due process. While SAM states its opposition to a loss of a person’s right to Due Process, they certainly have a strange way of showing it.

About a year ago, I wrote a piece called, “By Whom is Due Process of Law Administered?” I reread that the other day and once again this morning to examine how my thoughts at that time coincide with my thoughts at the moment as regards this red flag law proposal taking place in Maine and other states. I find that the year-old article is precise and certainly applies to the actions of today. I hope you take the time to read and/or reread that piece.

Here is some of what I wrote: “

What may have been your grandfather’s “Due Process” doesn’t even carry the same DNA as today’s Due Process and at the rate things are changing and that “balanced constitutional system” gets more and more out of whack – to those with sense enough to see it – we have as much hope remaining to cling to Due Process as we do the Second Amendment or any other Constitutional article that might stand in the way of the Global Power Structure.

“Due Process is a subjective matter and was designed as such. Due Process is as much as society will tolerate and the government can get away with. Even though society believes that the Constitution gives them Due Process and that this “balanced constitutional system” works, they are wrong. We even constantly hear of those screaming to get out and vote in order to get those wanting to upset that “balanced constitutional system” (rigged) out of office and replaced with another clone/drone and yet, nothing ever changes. Oppression and tyranny march forward in a slow and methodical pace, hidden behind a shroud of watered-down constitutional rights and due process.

“Invoking Due Process is a worthless instrument. So long as Congress “makes all laws which are necessary and proper” and voting in new blood doesn’t change anything, then we are left with but one choice – continue to convince ourselves that we are guaranteed Due Process, along with all those other “rights” meted out by men for slaves.

“Due Process be Damned!!!!!”

What is contained in the constitution is doled out to the citizen-serfs as it benefits the administrative governments and the Global Power Structure. Until such time as people can, somehow, get a grasp on that reality, all of the rest of this becomes an exercise in frustration, anger, and endless futility.

Think back of the turmoil that surrounded the attacks on the World Trade Center. Then President Bush and his flock of fascists crammed the “Patriot Act” down our throats. Most American’s bought into the song and dance and eagerly gave up certain rights (they thought they had) and permitted the government to set aside any thoughts of Due Process in exchange for “SECURITY.” We bought it and still do.

Here we are sneaking up on 20 years later and we see totalitarian subjects/activists doing what the government did back then. How convenient for the Feds and now the state governments. In the name of “security” and “public safety” we are staged to continue an onslaught against liberties and freedom regardless of the effect.

If Due Process is allotted in ways that are only beneficial to the wishes of the Ruling Establishment, then the frustration and anger becomes prevalent because we believe a “right” has been taken away, when, in fact, it was never there as we thought…or at least as a clear and precise guaranteed right.

While American citizens try to hang on to what is a mixed up allotment of “rights” and “privileges,” in hopes that it will make their lives better, it becomes even more discouraging and confrontational when those whom we thought share the belief that rights, regardless of the control we may or may not have over them, are worth trying to protect, are now seemingly working to dismantle in the name of security. It all sounds too familiar. What are we doing?

Even if we don’t have much of any control over our perceived rights, doing what we can to slow down the governments from complete and instant tyrannical control may be in our best interest. Getting on board to do the work of tyrannical governments makes no sense and makes one question why anyone would do such a thing.

Share

SAM’s Red Flag Gun Control “Compromise” is a BIG FASCIST JOKE!

The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM) should be embarrassed and SAM members should be angry that this organization worked on and apparently is supporting an LD 1811 “compromise” red flag, anti-Second Amendment, anti-Due Process proposed bill.

It is a constant battle in attempts to protect, as much as is actually possible within a rigged system that treats the Federal and State constitutions as pieces of toilet paper, the rights and freedoms we have left (very few if any). Despite the truth that law makers, at both the Federal and State level pay no attention to a constitution, falsely believed by most as written for them, groups/organizations like the SAM, NRA, etc. think they are doing somebody a favor by working on and rewriting a “compromise” gun control and anti-right to due process bill fantastically thought to be something of value.

It just blows my mind that a fascist-style government proposes to take away freedoms enjoyed by many people and groups like SAM, NRA, etc. rush in with a “compromise” as though that is satisfactory. Either a right should be protected or not. Giving it away one compromise at a time has a very bad ending. Can’t people see this? Evidently not.

When did such ignorant people begin thinking compromising our rights away was a good thing. Stupid is as stupid does.

If people actually support the Second Amendment, why do they willing work to “compromise” it away? If people actually support a person’s right to due process of the law, why then do they willingly work to “compromise” it away? Is that ALL that is left of one’s perceived value of these things? Evidently there is no value left to rights and freedom regardless as to whether such rights and freedoms are unalienable or meted out by a fascist government and supported by totalitarian members of our society such as the SAM, NRA, GOMA, etc.

The intent of LD 1811, regardless of what people attempt to tell you, is about doing just exactly what idiot President Donald Trump (who hates guns and gun owners until he needs their votes) said after the Florida school shooting, that we should go take away the guns that belong to anyone “WE” THINK might be “dangerous” and then worry about Due Process later. Heil, mein Fuhrer!

Well, welcome LD 1811. It’s intent is to give some uneducated “medical practitioner” full power to decide whether any person brought before them by “law enforcement” (that is the same law enforcement who gun down unarmed people and are justified for their actions) might pose a threat to themselves or other people.

It appears that SAM’s compromise is to demand that a person is given back their right to due process within 14 days…as though somehow this is what was intended by due process?

Note: I began watching a video that SAM put on their Farcebook (right word) page. I could only stomach it up to the point where Trahan said that this “group” (together in the video) brought in a lawyer to make sure that everything they did would not disrupt a person’s right to due process. If anyone in this group, represented by SAM, NRA, and GOMA, and the lawyer they hired, believes that the work they did on LD 1811 is not a disruption of one’s right to due process, one has to wonder from whence they received their brainwashing. It is obvious the brainwashing is well-entrenched.

But unseen and perhaps blindly ignorant of, is the fact that within this 14 days, the “court” must decide whether the “evidence” given them is reason enough to behead a man or let him go and return his confiscated weapons. Tell me that you really don’t believe that a rush to “judgement” by any “court” would render a proper decision and in most cases the judge will simply rule that a person is guilty until proven innocent, i.e. that, like the 14 days, no person is entitled to protection under the piece of crap CONstitution because some “medical practitioner” and lazy judge have taken it upon themselves to be gOD. No court wants to become responsible for anyone who now has been brought before the public and accused of being a nut job – defined as someone who might be a threat to themselves and/or others. It then becomes easier to simply say a full hearing must be heard and in the meantime this accused person has had their rights taken from them (life destroyed)…all in the name of saving the world from deranged mass murderers, which can’t be done anyway.

Talk about a very bad precedent that can trickle down to every aspect of our lives; an act that men have died for believing it was the backbone of the “freedom” they were giving their life for – innocent until proven guilty and due process. WHAT ARE WE DOING? Hasn’t it become obvious that the CONstitution, including the Bill of Rights, was not written for or intended for you and I. All governments, protected by their constitutions, only mete out freedoms as it becomes in the governments best interest.

Nothing is perfect in this crazy upside down world we have created. No law can stop the insanity this society has created. Living in a world where once we enjoyed seemingly countless freedoms and granting a person innocent until proven guilty, sometimes caused troubles. It’s not perfect. Taking away those freedoms only amounts to fascist rule and oppression. This approach has never worked throughout history, and yet, here we are with well-intentioned people willingly ceding their freedoms and believing they are doing the right thing.

And now, groups like SAM, and most of the really stupid, non thinking public, can’t see their own destruction by “compromising” any rights they once thought they had away and flushing them, willingly, down the toilet drain.

Regardless of any and all other window dressing that might be applied in this fascist “compromise” bill, the proposal should be an embarrassment to the name of SAM being attached to it and said to have eagerly participated in.

It appears too late for SAM to back out of this and so, I would hope that regardless of the Legislatures’ vote on this bill, members of SAM (unless they are blinded by their own ignorance) should demand the resignation of David Trahan (executive director of SAM) and any member of the Board of Directors who actively worked on this bill and/or support it. The same should be demanded from the NRA and Gun Owners of Maine.

If the majority membership of SAM believes this bill is a good thing, then SAM is no friend of sportsmen who own and use guns, and is absolutely no friend of anyone wishing to retain their right to the due process of law.

Fascist countries are those who operate exactly as this “compromise” bill is suggesting – strong arm the public and worry about whether a person any longer has a right to the “old-fashioned” due process.

Share

Guns: And The Divide Grows

I wonder how many, if any, ask themselves how a people can be so toxically divided and full of anger and hatred? For any who have entertained such thoughts, have you ever thought perhaps this is an orchestrated event? That’s right. It’s not something this is just happening. It’s something that is intended to happen. Besides the anger and hatred that continues to consume and divide this nation, I’m not exactly sure the reason for its intention beyond divide and conquer.

It was only a few years ago – I know some must remember – that any candidate for the U.S. Congress (either houses) and the presidency dared not suggest gun control. It was an undisputed formula for defeat.

Our post-normal existence has turned 180 degrees to where we see candidate Joe “The Groper” Biden declaring gun control and that he will “defeat” the NRA. (Historical Note: Who remembers when presidential candidate Edmund Muskie shed a tear because people were dragging his wife through the political knothole? That tear destroyed his run for the presidency. Today, we have a known woman groper, an acclaimed socialist, a homosexual, etc. etc. running for president and nobody blinks an eye. Tell me nothing has changed.)

However, Biden’s intent to “defeat” the NRA is that he will propose legislation the NRA opposes and he thinks he can pass it. I was kind of wondering if Biden was intending to “defeat,” as in get rid of the NRA. Maybe doing so wouldn’t be such a bad idea. While some believe the NRA is the greatest thing since spandex, I see the NRA as not much more than an organization that is slowly demolishing my right to self protection rather than those people and organizations attempting to do it all at once. Maybe it’s time to call out the real Second Amendment supporters and tell the NRA to kiss my behind.

But, back to the topic at hand. The divide continues and is growing at breakneck speed. It seems that anything that will cause more anger and rage directed at opposing “sides” (ideology) is the name of the game.

The situations that exist are so well crafted that ideology is unshakeable. With false beliefs securely grounded into individual psyches, plans have shifted away from creating two sides and the focus has become how to grow that divide.

Another example is one that we can find infiltrating even the tiniest of micro-villages in the depths of Western Maine. The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Paris voted unanimously to declare the town a Second Amendment sanctuary city.

Yes, such a move is only symbolic but certainly the mindsets are such that it causes the anger and hatred to grow. In the article we can read that the head of the Maine Immigrant’s Rights Coalition thinks the idea of declaring a Second Amendment sanctuary city, “is to create fear and conflict.”

He also claims that immigration sanctuary cities, designed to disregard immigration laws of this country and Second Amendment sanctuary cities, designed to send a message that communities believe in the unalienable right to self protection and the right to keep and bear arms, are not the same. Any comparison “is cynical and dangerous.”

The only way any person can see that one declaration is “cynical and dangerous” and the other is not, is if they have been completely brainwashed. Misguided and crafted anger and hatred funneled into blinded and ignorant understandings that a complete disregard for law and order pertaining to immigration laws is somehow acceptable and those wishing to protect the guarantees of the Bill of Rights is “cynical and dangerous” show just how cynical and dangerous things have become.

Back in the days when candidates for political office understood the dangers of threatening one’s constitutional and unalienable rights, a certain degree of caution, perhaps respect(?), existed. No longer. It’s all out war. The animosity, hostility, and antagonism that rules our society blinds us to the point we are incapable of comprehending our own foolishness causing failure to decipher whether differences exist or caring if they do.

How sad.

Share

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

On Tuesday, May 28, 2019, Maine’s Legislative Subcommittee, Criminal Justice and Public Safety, will discuss 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