December 12, 2018

Gun Ownership: A Right? Maybe – Granted Privilege? Limited

I do tire of the so-called “Constitutional Experts” who think they know the Constitution. And yes, here goes another attempt at the same. You can turn me off if you want to.

The NRA posted a rebuttal to an anti-handgun rant by a University of Maine professor (electrical engineer – makes sense to me) attempting to prove the professor is misguided and not up to grade with his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Most readers have an understanding of where I stand when it comes to one’s RIGHT to self-protection and the choice I should have as to how I wish to do that. So, I’ll spare you any rebuttals to the arguments between the professor and the NRA as to who has a right or what that right might be concerning gun ownership. I will, however, raise some questions, some of which readers will think perhaps I’ve stepped off the deep end and maybe I have.

The NRA claims, as most “experts” and misguided citizen/slaves, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written for us common folks – “we the people” and not “We the People.” Think again. However, I don’t much care for government’s lies and B.S. when it comes to their mere existence. They can all go to hell as far as I care. I claim my right to protection as granted to me by my Creator and that decision and the actions I choose are between me and Him. I must, therefore, (study to show myself approved unto God) decipher when to “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar and when Ceasar becomes contrary to God’s Word – again my choice established between me and Yahweh.

The Second Amendment is not a right – certainly not an inalienable right. If having the “right to bear arms” was an inalienable right, as we have wrongfully been taught, such a right would never be questioned or changed. The Second Amendment is constantly questioned and always being changed. When you consider the Constitution, it tells us that in order to amend any part thereof there is a process supposedly made necessary to accomplish that. That process has NEVER been undertaken. Congress, with the prompting by activists (a condition that exists to garner votes and money) merely passes new laws that completely alter the guts of the Second Amendment, or any other right or law.

But then we, the citizen/serf/slave, in our misguided educations (indoctrinations) think that the actions of Congress to rewrite the Bill of Rights or vary from what they consider the contents of that constitution, is “unconstitutional.” There is no such thing! Get over it!

How often these days do we hear people invoking their knowledge of the Constitution by making statements claiming some new law is unconstitutional? Endless! Such claims always appear from anyone who doesn’t like a new law or an amendment to an existing law, i.e. Amendment Ten, Second Amendment, etc. And through all of the cherry picking of what fits the agenda in question (all sides do this), they forget the “Necessary and Proper” clause of the Constitution – Article I Section 8. (written for the rulers, not for you and me)

Missing from this brainwashed existence is the understanding of what becomes law. Most think when Congress passes a new law, that is the law…period. Not so.

Court rulings often amend, obscure, muddle, and outright change what we believed to be law. It’s their “duty” to “interpret” the laws – wink-wink. The “winning” side and the “losing” side each get to write an opinion. Those opinions become part of the long list of precedences set that, unless questioned and challenged in a rigged courtroom, become quasi-law used for whatever purposes anyone so chooses. (Never trust a lawyer, right?)

Policy is also an unknown factor in crafting laws. Why do you think presidents, now and in the past, spend so much time writing and publishing their “policy” statements? Presidential Policy becomes law and is used in crafting all new laws designed to oppress the citizen/serf/slave.

The right to keep and bear arms never has been a clear-cut case of an unquestioned right. While it might do some good to fight for what you perceive as an “unquestioned” right to own a gun for whatever reason you so choose, the government operates as a rigged system. They control what you and I can and can’t do. Our “rights” suddenly become privileges because that rigged system can and does yank those privileges from us.

While the battle over the Second Amendment continues, it is only stalling the inevitable. The day will come, and it WILL come, when our fascist Congress will, once again, exercise their authority through THEIR constitution, to pass all laws necessary and proper to do whatever they want to you and me. We lose, they win!

Participating in this man-created criminal enterprise called government, places us in willing participation as a citizen/slave…and evidently, we like it.

The NRA and the professor and many more who will come after them are doing what they have been taught to do. It’s a shame in many ways. So long as things that exist the way they do is of benefit to the corrupt criminals in Washington, you will think you are protecting your rights. You are not! You are doing the bidding for them greedy, crooked, lying bastards! One day you will wake up (hopefully) and ask, what the hell happened?

 

Share

A Tale of Two Cities

 
         CHICAGO, IL   HOUSTON, TX
Population 2.7 million   2.15 million
       
Median HH Income $38,600   $37,000
       
% African-American 38.9%   24%
       
% Hispanic 29.9%   44%
       
% Asian 5.5%   6%
       
% Non-Hispanic White 28.7%   26%
       

Pretty similar until you compare the following:

  Chicago, IL               Houston, TX  
         
Concealed Carry   Legal? No   Yes  
         
Number of Gun Stores None   184 Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 – legal places to buy guns–Wal-Mart, K-mart, sporting goods, etc.  
         
Homicides, 2012 1,806   207  
         
Homicides per 100K 38.4   9.6  
         
Avg. January high temperature  (F) 31   63  
         

Conclusion :  Cold weather causes murders. This is due to climate change.

Share

White Male Gun Nuts Are Terrorists

I constantly hear each “side” of the political spectrum accusing the other “side” of speaking inflammatory language that only serves to perpetuate the anger and hatred that so severely divides this country.

In the following case, a democratic political candidate in Tennessee claims to be a “pro-gun” candidate. According to the Guns America website, the candidate and the party that is promoting his election were quoted as saying that the biggest terrorist organization in America is “White Male Gun Nuts.”

Nice! Real nice. And all this time I thought the biggest threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was totalitarian fascists.<<<Read More>>>

Share

NRA Appoints Oliver North as its President

Seriously? So, just what is the image the NRA is trying to present themselves as? Are they making sure that everyone knows they are nothing more than a “good-ole-boy” political pawn of the U.S. Corporation?

As many of you may well know, I am not a fan of the NRA. Short one stint of membership with the NRA that lasted one-year several years ago, I have not been a member of the NRA and do not support them today. They present themselves as THE supporter and defender of the Second Amendment when in reality they work tirelessly to water down the amendment and seemingly carry out the bidding of whoever the standing administration is in Washington promoting “reasonable” restrictions on a constitutional amendment that was intended to not be allowed changes or limitations.

Now, the NRA has asked Oliver North to be their president. Many see Oliver North as their hero…I suppose because he was a Marine, wore lots of medals and bling and worked for the NSC during the Reagan years. No matter how you want to present North in your mind’s eye, he was a crook, a thief, a cheat and some would go so far as to call him a traitor. You and I would have locked up and the key thrown away.

North claimed responsibility for devising the machination of “Iran Contra” as well as the system that would illegally sell guns to the Iranians in exchange for cash that would be funneled through a “shell” organization, on to a Washington, D.C. bank that was a favorite of some in the Republican Party (wink-wink) and with connections to black organizations all over the world.

And yet, after North retired from the Marines during his investigation and trial and was found guilty of his involvement, subsequently all charges were “dismissed” – an obvious and deliberate indication that he was going to be protected by a crooked government that sent him to carry out the affair in the beginning. There are no laws that govern those that govern.

Regardless of what you may think of Oliver North, even though he was a member of the NRA Board, moving him up to become the new president of the NRA is a bold move on the part of the NRA and one that could backfire enormously and create an even bigger mess for them in the long run. For certain it will increase the divide between those who support the Second Amendment and those that blame the NRA for all gun violence.

Some will buy into the concept that North’s high profile will be a bonus, along with his perceived strength and connections, but seriously, why is it that people think that any organization that claims to be staunch defenders of the Second Amendment would do everything in their power to align and connect themselves with the U.S. Corporation?

The insanity that exists in this country reveals itself when the overwhelming majority of Americans say that the U.S. Government is corrupt and they have no faith in them to do anything much good, and then turn around and run to the same Federal Government for strength and protection.

Nope! Sorry! You can continue to pay your money to the NRA and now you can have Oliver North as your spokesperson who will in their deceptive ways continue to downgrade the Second Amendment to nothing more than a government allotment of a right to keep and bear only those arms THEY deem appropriate and purchased the only way THEY deem appropriate and kept the only way THEY deem appropriate.

SHALL NEVER BE INFRINGED?

Share

Gun Control Laws Aimed At Public Safety: The Devil is in the Definitions

Yesterday I posted a notice about the intent of Maine lawmakers to introduce a bill disguised as a “Community Protection Order” that will “Prevent High-Risk Individuals” from possessing firearms.

Some may say the intent of the proposed legislation is a good idea and perhaps that is true to some extent. A serious argument can be made as to whether such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment as well as Due Process.

But forget about that for a moment.

Much of the problem with any of these laws is that interpretations of definitions are left up to a court and the arguments of lawyers. That, in and of itself, should alert us immediately to serious problems.

The crux of this proposed legislation is centered around “mental illness” and/or a person’s propensity toward violent and emotional behavior. Recognizing the seriousness of these conditions is a matter of a person’s perspective. Do we really want to limit Due Process based on the perspective of a judge?

LD 1884, is the Maine proposed bill which is the matter of topic. I’ll go ahead and post what this legislation uses for “definitions” to help understand the intent of the law and offer comments after.

§ 401.  Definitions

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.

1.  Community protection order.   “Community protection order” means a written order signed by the court that prohibits and enjoins temporarily, if issued pursuant to subchapter 2, or on an extended basis, if issued pursuant to subchapter 3, a named individual from having a firearm in that individual’s custody or control or owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving or attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.
2.  Family or household member.   “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in Title 19-A, section 4002, subsection 4.
3.  High-risk individual.   “High-risk individual” means an individual who presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual and:

A.  Has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication but has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual’s medication while not under supervision; or
B.  Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.

The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual for the purposes of this chapter. As used in this subsection, “mental illness” has the same meaning as in section 3318-A, subsection 1, paragraph B.

4.  Restrained individual.   “Restrained individual” means an individual who is the subject of a community protection order.
Community Protection Order – Of note here is that this order can be issued in one of two ways – either as a temporary order by a court that has determined that an individual fits the bill’s criteria of being barred from having anything to do with a gun, or the same conditions on an extended basis once again according to the interpretation of the court of Subchapters 2 and 3.
The title of this order is designed to mislead the public into thinking this is the will of the “community” a communistic term and that it is for the purpose of keeping that “community” safe from those with a “mental illness.” After all, all those with a “mental illness” are mass murderers…right?
High-Risk Individual – This is where things get really dicey. A “High-Risk Individual” is here defined as someone who a judge thinks (his perspective of course because there are no real definitions for this condition) is going to hurt himself or another person. In addition to this perceived condition, this person has a “mental illness” – again an interpretation based on biased training or thinking/ideology. Once a court decides for themselves a person has a mental illness they must then decide whether they think this person has been taking their medications as prescribed by some quack doctor.
The suggestion here is that if a judge, having decided you have a “mental” condition, deems that you haven’t demonstrated “a pattern of voluntarily and consistently” taking your pills you lose your right to self-protection and due process.
Part B of this section is a real doozy! If it is shown “through evidence” (wink-wink) that actions by any person with a court’s definition of mental illness can show a “reasonable belief” that such a person has a disposition toward “violent or emotionally unstable conduct,” then they will be issued a Community Protection Order – perhaps ostracized for life.
The real joke is when the authors of the bill attempt to mislead the voters by saying just because a person has a mental illness, and has been “released from” a nut house, so long as they are being good brain-dead zombies and taking their chemicals, doesn’t necessarily mean they are a threat to the valued “community.” RIGHT!
History has shown us that it is most often a needless task to keep “mentally ill” people institutionalized and pumped up or down with chemicals and is a drain to that valued community, so they are gathered up and murdered. After all, these valued communities cannot be bogged down and given bad images from anyone with a “mental illness.” They MIGHT pose a threat, real or imagined, to their way of life. Society decides who lives and who dies.
Restrained Individual – Once you have met all the criteria that the “Community” has determined using their own standards of measurements, including societal tolerances, political ideology, and in general operation under the fear instilled in them by actions of a fascist governmental regime, the lucky winner becomes labeled as a “Restrained Individual.” How fortunate.
Whether you agree with the intent of the proposed bill or not shouldn’t matter once you consider how such fascist laws, put into play by willing and eager totalitarians, are a serious threat to any society that still deems itself to be free.
Giving power to the Courts and to governments to make decisions based on highly abstract and illusory definitions is quite akin to National Socialism. If you don’t fully comprehend National Socialism then you haven’t been paying very close attention.
There are channels that already exist in which efforts to control a deranged person from committing mass murder. If the information given to the public about the shooting in Parkland, Florida is at all truthful, then the lesson to walk away with is that those with authority to have intervened failed in their jobs. Insanity tells us to make more fascist laws that will not and cannot be enforced will somehow make a difference.
But this problem is not endemic to Maine. Since the Parkland, Florida shooting many state governments and the Federal government have proposed laws that are similar that leave the interpretation of what determines a mental illness, propensity to violence, or emotional unstableness up to the courts and the governments. Even fake Second Amendment advocates have stood firmly behind such insane legislation.
With each passing day, it amazes me more and more the eagerness of totalitarian useful idiots to help tie the noose that will one day be their demise. In the days of Marx and Stalin, when these two were finished using those that helped bring them to power, they just murdered them to get them out of their way.
So what’s happening to you today?
Share

Former Maine IFW Commissioner “DEMANDS” Destruction of Your Inalienable Rights

Repeatedly I have written about the fact that fish and wildlife departments nationwide have gone green and become nothing more than Left-Wing environmentalist that oppose hunting, fishing, and trapping as well as complete predator protection. Going hand in hand with these mental-midget totalitarians is the call to ban guns believing in their progressive empty heads that such an action will somehow, magically stop violent crimes.

If there are any that agree with my assessment of things, they may not realize that this morphing didn’t happen overnight. It did not and here is some proof.

Some may remember former Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Bucky Owen. Owen served under Gov. Angus King (oh, that doesn’t surprise you?) in the late 1990s through early 2000s. It’s difficult to wrap your head around the idea that one man in charge of a government agency where once it’s function was fish and game management, which included the North American Model of Wildlife Management (includes hunting), is now “demanding” action to destroy the Second Amendment and your inalienable right to decide how you would prefer to protect yourself and your property.

In a brief Letter to the Editor of a Bangor, Maine newspaper, Owen writes: “…raise the age for gun ownership to 21; require a safety course for all gun owners just as we do for hunters; reduce the legal clip size to that of a traditional hunting rifle; make bump stocks illegal; require universal background checks for the sale of any firearm; outlaw semiautomatic weapons, such as the AR-15; keep weapons away from those who don’t have the mental capacity to use them correctly; and finally; ensure better data gathering and sharing among law enforcement agencies.”

In addition to his misguided empty-headedness on the fact that besides destroying our rights, not one single thing he suggests will do a damned thing to stop gun violence or make schools safer. But the liberal disease knows no deep-end bounds and he shows his real anger, hatred, and ignorance when he writes: “For those who want to play “Rambo,” make these weapons available at a licensed shooting range, and if that isn’t enough, join the Marines, where you can shoot to your heart’s content.”

This person once led the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Difficult to think this man served in a leadership role.

Owen, and many, many, others have encouraged and supported children dictating the social and political structure of this nation. I am reminded of when the Leftists actively sought to bring children into positions of authority sitting on school boards dictating what they wanted their education/brainwashing factories to look like. I ask, how has that turned out. Are we now so stupid that we look to children for our leadership?

With this infectious disease of progressivism/totalitarianism threatening our very existence, is it any wonder our fish and game departments are doomed?

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Shared Goal: Reduce Violence, Make Communities Safer?

Jim Shepherd at the Outdoor Wire ended his optimistic piece by telling readers that the National Shooting Sports Foundation sent out a press release encouraging people to become involved in the conversation, “to see violence in our society reduced and our communities and our children made safer.”

So far every so-called Second Amendment advocate group and most individual s0-called Second Amendment supporters have only talked about banning guns not being an answer, but have been willing to ignorantly support ridiculous efforts to make schools safer by “educating” (propagandizing/brainwashing) the public about violence and mental illness, while giving law enforcement more authority and leeway to confiscate your guns.

What’s not being addressed, and probably never will, are those issues that have MADE this society violent, angry, mentally ill, chemically altered, etc. that drives a person to exemplify that abnormal manipulation into violent actions.

If the real “Shared Goal” is to reduce violence and make our communities and children safer, the conversation needs to be broadened into areas where most people will become uncomfortable. It will never happen. Too much money at stake.

Share

I’m Not All In With This Man’s “Gun Culture”

I read this article this morning of a man describing his world of “gun culture.” I thought a lot of it was well presented, although I didn’t necessarily agree with all of it, including some of the “feelings” he gets from carrying a concealed weapon, etc.

What I disagreed with the most was what is on display in this country at present. Somehow the “gun culture” has taken the high road, while on the one hand promoting a person’s right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms, and on the other hand assuming the role of a good totalitarian in support of fascist government regulation and control over an inalienable right to keep and bear arms and a person’s choice as to how to do that.

The author writes: “Many gun-rights supporters were appalled to learn after the Sutherland Springs shooting that the military was systematically underreporting disqualifying convictions to the federal background check database. Under pressure, the military has added more than 4,000 new names in just three months. Similarly, law-enforcement failures or background-check failures that preceded, for example, the Virginia Tech, Charleston, Orlando, Sutherland Springs, and Parkland shootings are spurring serious new consideration of the gun violence restraining order, a move that would allow family members and others close to a potential shooter to get in front of a judge to request that the court direct law enforcement to temporarily seize a dangerous person’s weapons. It gives ordinary citizens a chance to “do something” after they “see something” and “say something.

The intent here is understandable. What is seriously flawed in the circular thinking process is the belief that some Second Amendment restrictions affect only the lawful citizen and others don’t. This action requires that the True Believer fully trusts his government to do the right thing and protect us. How has that worked in the past?

I can’t be a part of this “gun culture.” I don’t like government telling me how, when and with what, I can defend myself.

The author is proud that the military has turned in more names of those now prohibited from buying and owning a gun, with complete faith and trust that each and every one of them was justified…by whose standards I might ask. Seriously, is there any valid reason that we should believe and trust the government to do anything that is right?

The writer has complete faith in his government that a “temporary” taking of a person’s property, deeming them “dangerous” (by whose standards I ask again?) is a good thing. And, I’ll bet this same person is the first to wonder why his inalienable right to protection is being systematically taken away and by piecemeal being ceded over to the Government for administration.

By God don’t we ever learn anything?

Share

Continued Promotion of “Reasonable” Destruction of Gun Rights

The National Shooting Sports Foundation and others are encouraging their members to contact their senators to push them to pass the “Fix NICS Act, S.2135.” Who needs those who openly fight to eliminate a person’s right to protect themselves and their right to choose how to do it, when there are rich and powerful so-called Second Amendment advocates working round the clock to do the job of the anti-gun crowd?

So-called pro-Second Amendment groups tell those whose money they need to pay overblown salaries that laws created to limit a person’s rights under the Second Amendment will only affect the lawful citizen; that criminals and the insane pay no regard to laws when they need a gun, or any other weapon, to carry out their crimes. Surely there are many other methods of mass killing than a couple of guns.

Evidently, the NRA and NSSF, to name a couple, don’t believe what they tell others and are pushing for the U.S. Senate to pass a useless “Fix” to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Not to cloud the picture here by introducing facts to consider in this illicit act to make a mockery out of the Second Amendment, but has anybody actually read S2135? I didn’t think so.

Suppose you believe in your misguided mind that somehow a corrupt government that operates a criminal enterprise that is rigged can pull off something like S2135, which is only an amendment to the existing laws that are supposed to regulate the instant criminal background check. Already they have proven they are incapable of making it work. Adding 33 amendments to the law will not change anything. The problem isn’t guns, but don’t let me mess up your Nirvanic experiences.

In your same off-track minds, you think this amendment will do the trick and will prohibit, unqualified “mental” people from buying a gun. Unlike the common criminal, mentally ill people, which includes those who have been found guilty of “domestic abuse,” or sought help for Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, will be unable to possess a gun to carry out their mentally deranged plans to kill people. One might have to ask who are the sane ones around here?

So, let’s say S2135 passes and you believe it will stop or limit undesirable citizens from buying and owning a gun. BUT, HAVE YOU READ THE ACT? I didn’t think so.

The Senate, the President, and all that support this Act intend to make it work with bribery and extortion, with no real consequences for not doing the job described in the Act. This Act sends gobs of money (bribery) to government agencies, both state and federal, as “incentives” to do their jobs. And if you fail to file your reports on time, the head of each agency not meeting deadlines, will not be eligible for end of the year bonuses (extortion) until they have cleaned their rooms completed filing.

Did I also mention that these “required” filings of records of those meeting ineligibility requirements to buy or own a gun, don’t have to have everyone on the list? 90 percent will be sufficient. I’m positive more than 10% of those ineligible to own a gun do the mass killings (wink-wink). Oh, wait! Almost none of those who have committed mass murder with guns failed or would have failed a criminal background check, even for being a mental case. Shucks! I’m confused.

So you see, the insanity is prevalent throughout society and government. People are confused and say things they don’t believe or even understand. They are incapable of injecting any sanity into anything. All actions and reactions are driven by programmed anger and hatred. Democrats wanted the FIX NICS ACT and the Republicans stopped it. Now the Republicans and their cronies want FIX NICS ACT and the Democrats don’t. And there is no insanity?

Oh, if only the people would clean out their blind hatred, things might change. Is there any hope?

2 Chronicles 7:14 – If my people, among whom my Name is called upon, do humble themselves, and pray and seek my presence, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear in heaven and be merciful to their sin, and will heal their land.

Share

Reasonable Means Giving Away

*Editor’s Note* – I have placed a teaser and a link to an article found published in the Outdoorwire discussing guns, violence, and the Second Amendment. The article as a whole is mostly a reasonable presentation of historic quotes from recognizable historical figures.

The author points out that all people are good and they all just want the violence to end. Perhaps that is sort of true but it is my contention that the majority of these people really don’t want the violence to end because they are part of the promulgation of violence in our society…but they don’t know it or are not willing to admit it. They are in love with the lifestyles they have chosen, which includes violence among other things.

The quotes given in this article are fine. Some can even be perceived as outstanding. But with all good quotes, there’s one reality that is most often overlooked. While Jefferson, Adams, Mason, and Franklin had great things to say in support of the Second Amendment or a person’s right to self-defense by owning a gun, I doubt that everyone living at that time agreed with their perspective on guns and gun ownership. As a result, from that point forward there has always been those wishing to mitigate the inalienable right into something more closely resembling a government granted privilege.

The cry goes out always for “something to be done” and/or that it only makes sense that there be placed “reasonable” restrictions on that right. The words of the Second Amendment have never been altered and in contradiction, over the years, the government has seen fit to do “what is necessary and proper” to take the inalienable right from the people. And this we have brainwashed to believe is needed in order to “do something” while placing reasonable limitations on an inalienable right which history has proven not to stop any of the intended actions of gun violence but instead has provided a landscape in which it is far easier to access “gun free zones” and kill at will.

The author of the piece linked to below does reveal that impossible-to-lose brainwashing, intimating the need for both sides to come together to find a way to end the violence. If this author and the many hundreds I have read before and will read after, actually believe the talking points used to construct their words, then why should we then seek to be “reasonable” and give away that which we KNOW will only make things worse? This makes no sense! This is insanity!

While the author makes an attempt to address the real issue of why any person is of the mindset to pick up any weapon and kill anyone, I question whether they actually believe any of what they have written.

The author writes: “We demonize the opposition with no attempt to understand each other’s perspective and motivation.  Is it any wonder we are no closer to figuring out a solution?”

The so-called demonization of the “opposition” is a programmed event. The Global Power Structure has ensured that there will always be “opposition” to every facet of our lives, regardless of our actual convictions.

The problem with attempting to “understand each other’s perspective and motivation” is twofold. First, the other’s perspective isn’t their own. It has been crammed down their throats along with a blind acceptance of it. In trying to understand where the “other side” is coming from, it is impossible because those truly in control make sure that the real issue is never addressed and the battle rages on between the false dichotomies of two parties or two political convictions – worthless existences. It’s far easier to go to war and fight for fake political reasons than to address the terrible, progressive lifestyles that have brought us to a point of killing for no reason…among other worthless values.

Second, the author brings up motivation. How are we expected to understand another’s motivation when we fail to recognize the perspective for which one has chosen to take up the battle sword and fight?

All that is ever discussed is that guns kill and one side wants to ban the guns and the other side wants to preserve the right to own a gun. With no honest discussions ever taking the stand of any real issues, then all that is left is to argue for naught.

When the author laments of not finding a solution, I cannot help but remind readers of that tried and true Hegelian Dialectic. The Hegelian Dialectic creates a crisis, embellishes that crisis and then rushes in with THEIR solution. Refusing to understand the forces at work guarantees the “solution” will always be that of the Global Power Structure.

It is a mental deficiency to believe that banning a gun will stop the killing as much as believing giving everyone a gun will. Killing is a symptom of life’s wrong track. A gun is a machine. Our world is satiated with machines and chemicals capable of mass destruction. How we choose to use those machines is nothing more than the shadow being cast from the society in which we live. That is the issue that needs addressing, not the gun.

As hard as men might try, they will never end the violence until the ship is righted and the focus of life is the Creator and not the creations.

I will leave readers, once again, with the following bit of Scripture: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, and against the worldly governors, the princes of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness, which are in the high places.” Ephesians 6:12

The majority of people on the anti-gun side are not unreasonable.  They do not want to take our guns for fun or spite. They are good people who only want the violence to stop.  To their way of thinking, removing guns from society is the simplest way to achieve that end.  But neither the problems we face nor their solutions are simple.  Today’s public debate barely mentions the causation for a generation of mass murderers.  In addition to a mental health screening system that is clearly failing, discipline, family values, and personal responsibility are lacking in many households today.  The desensitization to human suffering and death promulgated by Hollywood and the video game industry are also issues we must address as a society in order to slow and eventually put an end to this epidemic of violence.  But that discussion is not likely to happen.  Not when liberal leaders pushing for more governmental control know it is much more effective to juxtapose dead children with an AR 15 and spent cases. <<<Read More>>>

Share