December 18, 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

In Response To Doctors Who Want To Ban Guns

This deep into the Information Age the government wields unimaginable power. The only thing that guarantees the freedom of future Americans is privately owned firearms. We have systematically deconstructed the family, men have forgotten how to be fathers, and we daily ogle murder, rape, and butchery thinking it entertainment. Is it really so surprising that our children shoot each other?

If saving lives really is the goal then meaningful social reform, not ineffective legislative placebos, is the answer. Do we care enough about children to admit that they need dads? Will easier access to marijuana really make things better? The status quo is insanity. If we are serious about solving society’s problems we should treat the disease rather than the symptoms.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Maryland Police Shoot and Kill Man While “Confiscating” His Guns

Gary J. Willis, 61, opened the door to his home with a gun in his hand when two police officers came knocking at 5:17 a.m. on Nov. 5. Anne Arundel County police say Willis put the gun on a table next to the door, but “became irate” when the officers explained that they had come to confiscate his firearms.

Willis grabbed his gun and a struggle ensued, during which the firearm discharged. No one was injured, but the officer not engaged in the struggle shot Willis, and he died at the scene.

Under Maryland’s new Extreme Risk Protection Order law (aka, “red flag law”), family, police, and mental health professionals can seek an order from a judge to temporarily confiscate firearms from a person believed to be a danger to themselves or others.

Maryland’s law states that anything related to an order is confidential unless the court rules otherwise.

…believes one of Willis’ sisters requested that police temporarily remove his guns…

…Willis’ death is evidence that the new red flag law is needed and working.<<<Read More>>>

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

Of Course It’s Constitutional, Because We Live in a Free Country Bwahahaha

A Federal judge has ruled that it is NOT unconstitutional for the Gov. of New Jersey to force the destruction of any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The order gave owners of such devices 180 to comply – December 10, 2018.

More than likely on December 10, 2018, New Jersey will get quite an increase in unlawful citizens.<<<Read More here and the complete court ruling>>>

Share

Montana Governor Bullock Wants Semiautomatic Gun Ban for America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

When Man-gODS Determine Risk Protection

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

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

What could possibly go wrong?

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

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

This is insanity!

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

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

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

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

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

There is no hope!

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

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

There is no hope!

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

Share

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

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

United Airlines Confronted About Breaking Ties with the NRA

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

After Parkland School Shooting, United Joined Liberal Mob Denouncing National Rifle Association and Ended Relationship
With Group

United CEO Oscar Munoz Tells Shareholder Activist That the Obviously Political Decision Wasn’t Political

Chicago, IL / Washington, DC – United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz was confronted today about the company’s decision to end the airline’s affiliation with the National Rifle Association (NRA) following the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida. The National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) –  the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – challenged the company’s action in front of its investors and leadership, calling the move overtly political.

“When I asked why United broke a business relationship with the NRA, Munoz dismissively answered me by suggesting I was making political commentary and that the company’s decision to essentially denounce the NRA wasn’t political,” said FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended United’s shareholder meeting and confronted Munoz. “Munoz claimed the decision was made only because a United employee’s daughter was killed in the Parkland shooting. While that is indeed a tragedy, this explanation insults the intelligence of United’s investors and customers. United has 90,000 employees and has been around for nearly 100 years. In all that time, has no other United employee or a family member experienced gun violence? That’s hard to believe. It would seem the company, like so much of the mainstream media, regularly ignores shootings in areas such as the South Side of Chicago.”

Today’s annual shareholder meeting of United Continental Holdings – the parent company of United Airlines and United Express – took place at the Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois.

“Munoz’s decision to end the company’s discounts for NRA members came on the heels of a very politicized reaction to a tragedy. The mainstream media and anti-Second Amendment activists were pressuring corporations to join their cause. United fell in line with the liberal mob. Of course its decision was political,” said Danhof. “It’s also pretty rich for Munoz to grandstand and claim the company isn’t political when it just hiredformer Obama Administration mouthpiece Josh Earnest.”

At the meeting, Danhof told Munoz:

I suppose you are ignoring the fact that the NRA had nothing to do with what happened in Parkland and that the perpetrator had zero affiliation with the NRA. But, hey, congratulations on your virtue signaling. What exactly did investors get out of that? The company is willfully giving up money. That’s an odd choice for an airline company in a hyper-competitive industry.

Danhof then added:

CNBC asked Warren Buffett about corporations distancing themselves from the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers and how Berkshire Hathaway would respond. Buffett replied: “I don’t believe in imposing my views on 370,000 employees and a million shareholders. I’m not their nanny on that… I don’t think that Berkshire should say we’re not going to do business with people who own guns. I think that would be ridiculous.”

Buffett went on to explain that corporations that make in-the-moment political decisions are subject to the fickle nature of politics and are constantly reacting to events rather than standing on consistent principles.

Can you tell us – your investors – how it makes sound business sense to alienate millions of potential customers who support the 2nd Amendment, and explain why you have this right while Warren Buffet has this wrong?

Danhof’s full question, as prepared for delivery, is available at this link.

“By refusing to actually address the crux of my question, Munoz made it clear to me that he doesn’t really care that he offended so many gun supporters and NRA members,” noted Danhof. “Furthermore, he refused to address how this decision might affect United’s business. That should concern the company’s investors. That’s a leadership failure of epic proportions.”

Following the Parkland shooting and the subsequent corporate backlash, Danhof penned a commentary for The Federalist noting just how predictable it was that big business aligned with the left. Danhof observed the common pattern following such tragedies, noting: “It’s an all too common pattern. Liberal politicians and the media take up a cause. Left-wing activist groups mobilize to pressure corporations. Corporate America joins the fray, and their support is used to bolster and justify the cause. It’s a circular echo chamber, but it’s effective.” Danhof’s full commentary is available here

In April, Danhof confronted Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan over his decision to cancel lending to certain gun manufacturers. That confrontation was widely covered in the press, including the Charlotte Observer, the Chicago Tribune, the St. Louis Post-Dispatchand many other major publications.

Following that meeting, Bank of America announced that it would indeed extend critical financing to Remington – a maker of military assault rifles. An article in Reuters discussed that decision in the context of Danhof’s question to Moynihan.

Counting today’s United meeting, FEP representatives have participated in 21 shareholder meetings in 2018.

Additionally, at yesterday’s annual meeting of Merck shareholders, Danhof asked the pharmaceutical company’s CEO, Kenneth Frazier, about his political activism. Frazier quit President Trump’s business advisory councils in the wake of the civil and racial unrest that took place last summer in Charlottesville, Virginia. According to Danhof, Frazier “jumped the shark” in alluding to Nazi Germany during what he called “a wild distortion” of his question. A video of that exchange is available on YouTube.

Further commentary from Danhof regarding the Merck meeting is forthcoming.


Launched in 2007, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project focuses on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Over the past four years alone, FEP representatives have participated in over 100 shareholder meetings – advancing free-market ideals about health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and other important public policy issues. As the leading voice for conservative-minded investors, FEP annually files more than 90 percent of all right-of-center shareholder resolutions. Dozens of liberal organizations, however, annually file more than 95 percent of all policy-oriented shareholder resolutions and continue to exert undue influence over corporate America.


FEP activity has been covered by media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Drudge Report, Business Insider, National Public Radio and SiriusXM. FEP’s work was prominently featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).


Danhof’s latest commentary, on the recent Walt Disney shareholder meeting where his actions resulted in Joy Behar’s public apology for suggesting Christianity is a mental illness, is available by clicking here.

Share

What If The Second Amendment Was Repealed?

“What would that be like, the repeal of the Second Amendment? Would it markedly transform our way of life? Would acts of unspeakable violence cease? Would civility and compassion return in our deeply divided country and troubled culture? Would discipline of children return to homes? Would there cease to be drug use and mentally troubled individuals? Would there be a return to moral values in a country that is so adrift? Would sex and violence stop being promoted in television, movies and video games? Would our citizenry be held accountable for its own behavior? Would there truly be consequences for lawlessness and would the rule of law mean something?”<<<Read More>>>

Share