I was sent this meme and for some reason I chuckled out loud.
Gun-Free Zones
February 27, 2020 by Leave a Comment
Perhaps the NRA’s Systematic Approach to Destroying Gun Rights Just Isn’t Moving Fast Enough
July 27, 2019 by Leave a Comment
I was reading this morning more useless nonsense about the toxic excrement show going on at the NOW defunct and going belly up, NRA. One reader referred to Wayne LaPierre and members of the NRA’s Board of Directors as scumbags. I guess that about best describes them all and the vote of no confidence present within the membership.
If nothing else comes out of the dog and pony sideshow, perhaps members will finally get it that the NRA is NOT anyone’s friend because of their continued slow destruction of the Second Amendment. For many, many years members, stupid enough to give these bought and paid for “lobbyists” their money to perform more magic shows, were clueless as to what exactly was going on. Maybe now some of them are beginning to see the light.
To those with an honest perspective on things, i.e. not so unquestioningly automated in blindly following a corrupt organization, have known for decades that the NRA has done a magnificent job of pulling the wool over the eyes of their members. The NRA has slowly and with purpose whittled away at making the Second Amendment a worthless document, ensuring that American serfs are never guaranteed an unalienable right to self defense and to keep and bear arms, and instead eager to allow the government (where the majority of NRA administrators got their training) to mete out privileges as they deem appropriate. To accomplish this the NRA piled gobs of greenbacks in their bank coffers to pay the exorbitantly high salaries of their heads like Wayne LaPierre, while concentrating their operational business with good-ole-boy companies and legal firms.
Perhaps the real leadership, those who control what the NRA does, has decided that this incrementalism of Second Amendment destruction isn’t going fast enough. Perhaps they have decided that it is time to destroy the NRA in order to provide a gap, even if it’s a false gap, in their false gun rights activism and money grubbing ways, in order to move the process of ridding the country, once and for all, of any thoughts of a person’s right to keep and bear arms.
When you consider that the NRA is headquartered in the “Holy Roman” Empire State, a state whose government has all power and control over this “not for profit” (wink-wink) organization, shouldn’t members have been asking why?
When you realize that the heads of the NRA, over time, have manipulated the structure of the organization in such a way that the current Chief Executive and Executive Vice President of the NRA has near dictatorial status and can do pretty much just as he damn well pleases, shouldn’t members have been asking why?
When you realize that Wayne LaPierre was “raised in the Catholic Church” and was Jesuit-trained at Boston College, and now turns a blind eye to the calls of millions of NRA members for him to go, shouldn’t members be asking why?
The damage has been done. Any thoughts that American serfs had in the power of the NRA to protect their Second Amendment rights went out the window a long time ago. Now, the destruction of the organization itself, perhaps deliberately so, lies in the balance. It’s probably too late for the NRA to right itself and maybe that is the conspiratorial purpose all along.
With successes with infighting and disgruntled members, little credibility remains with the NRA which opens the door for an onslaught of anti gun legislations at state and federal levels. What was once a slow, trickling death, will soon turn into a steady flow rendering the United States Corporation of meted out privileges another disarmed country that can very easily set the stage for eventual dictatorial rule with no fear of citizen opposition or more accurately, a citizenry capable of fighting back.
Members should be asking themselves who, exactly, does control the NRA and what is their real purpose?
Gun Ownership: A Right? Maybe – Granted Privilege? Limited
December 3, 2018 by Leave a Comment
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?
A Tale of Two Cities
December 3, 2018 by Leave a Comment
| 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.
White Male Gun Nuts Are Terrorists
October 19, 2018 by Leave a Comment
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>>>
NRA Appoints Oliver North as its President
May 8, 2018 by Leave a Comment
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?
Gun Control Laws Aimed At Public Safety: The Devil is in the Definitions
March 31, 2018 by Leave a Comment
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. There are times where gun violence occurs and terrell personal injury lawyers are needed. 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?
Former Maine IFW Commissioner “DEMANDS” Destruction of Your Inalienable Rights
March 15, 2018 by Leave a Comment
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!
Shared Goal: Reduce Violence, Make Communities Safer?
March 13, 2018 by Leave a Comment
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.
I’m Not All In With This Man’s “Gun Culture”
February 28, 2018 by Leave a Comment
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?
