July 19, 2019

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

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

Conservative Investor Activist Takes Citi to Task for Anti-Second Amendment Stance

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

New York, NY/Washington, DC – After the nation’s leading conservative investor group confronted Citigroup’s leadership over the company’s campaign against the Second Amendment, Citi CEO Michael Corbat implied today that he knows more about business than famed investor Warren Buffett.

Last March, Citigroup and other corporations capitulated to journalist Andre Ross Sorkin’s crusade to get banks and credit cards to limit Second Amendment liberties. Citi announced that it would prohibit its clients from selling guns to anyone under the age of 21 and cease the sale of high-capacity magazines.

“Corbat was unable to defend the company’s anti-Second Amendment stance because it’s indefensible,” said National Center General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project (FEP) DirectorJustin Danhof, Esq., who questioned the bank CEO today. “In trying to say that Citi’s policy made sense from a business perspective, he implied that he knows more than famed investor Warren Buffett about how to run a business. That’s laughable.”

At the meeting, Danhof stated:

Because of the company’s anti-Second Amendment stance, Citi was denied the chance to be involved with a $600 million road project in Louisiana. Furthermore, members of Congress have threatened to cancel Citi’s federal contracts. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) noted, “Citigroup has no business threatening law abiding business owners for exercising their Second Amendment rights. The only reason that Citigroup is even in business today is because American taxpayers bailed them out during the Great Recession.”

So, to be clear – the company is impinging on the constitutional rights of the very Americans who bailed Citi out after you all made a series of poor business decisions. Perhaps you should have just said thank you instead.

Danhof then noted:

CNBC asked Warren Buffett about corporations distancing themselves from the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers and how Berkshire Hathaway would respond to such pressure. 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.”

Can you tell us – your investors – exactly how much money we stand to lose because of this decision, and explain why you have this right while Warren Buffett has this wrong?

Danhof’s full question, as prepared for delivery, is available here. Audio of his exchange with Corbat is available here.


“Corbat’s admission that Citi has lost business due to its opposition to the Second Amendment is telling. But it’s concerning that he refused to say how much,” said Danhof. “Investors have a right to such information. Furthermore, he claimed that some new customers came to the business because of its far-left virtue signaling, but he provided no actual evidence to back up this assertion. That’s equally concerning. This proves that Citi made a purely political decision. Unless such a decision is germane to a company’s core mission, corporate America should be in the business of business, not politics. We will continue to push that message.”

The Citigroup meeting marks the fifth time FEP has participated in a shareholder meeting in 2019.

Share

“Red Flag” “Extreme Risk Order” Gone Wrong

What could possibly go wrong? That was the question I asked the other day when I wrote about so-called “Red Flag” laws designed in principle to stop crimes before they happen…yeah, right.

Since that writing we have had an incident in Maryland where police went to a man’s house in order to “execute” a “Red Flag” order and ended up executing the man instead of the order.

In addition, there is a case in Vermont where hearsay and emotional nonsense resulted in an “Extreme Risk Order” being carried out in which police executing the order went to a man’s house, not in anyway involved in a supposed plan to cause harm but because he was a relative, and owned firearms, confiscated all of his firearms, which incidentally were locked up inside the home.

This gives us some ideas of “what could possibly go wrong.” To some the intent is good but the execution stinks. Are we now so damned strongly delusional that we can justify the taking of one man’s life thinking we MIGHT be protecting the life of another? Evidently.

It should have been proven over and over again that forcing a ban on guns of lawful citizens and/or taking those firearms away does nothing to get at the root problem of why there is violence in our society. Instead, it creates more crime. Are we to believe and accept that when law enforcement personnel are carrying out their orders, the loss of life and/or the suspension of one’s rights is in order because of hearsay and unwarranted suspicion? Is this what President Trump meant when he said to hell with Due Process. Are we to arrest the “bastards” and then ask questions later? If so, welcome to the corporation of police states, or perhaps you like the word fascism better, carried out by willing totalitarians brainwashed to think they are doing the right thing.

What could possibly go wrong? And yet, we still see so-called Second Amendment supporters clamoring with Leftist totalitarians to do “reasonable” things, like the destruction of the Bill of Rights, all in the name of public safety.

Go ahead. Support those “Red Flag” laws. Then sit back and enjoy your own created furtherance of slavery and oppression.

Share

“Access” to Gun Safety Equipment a Red Herring?

This morning I was reading David Trahan’s first in a series of how to change the discussion about guns to one of safety rather than control and/or limitations of rights. Sounds like a great idea. But….

It is for the most part impossible to offer any counter argument against anyone or anything that is seeking to promote gun safety, without being viewed as a radical, uncaring person. After all, who doesn’t want to stop accidental shootings of the innocent?

But like taking away gun rights from the lawful people claiming such will make us all safe and eliminate gun violence, will actions, in the name of gun safety, accomplish more than will be taken away by limited access to your own guns?

Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), suggests that finding a way to increase access to gun safety equipment (safes, locks, etc.) along with an education program to convince people that “proper” use and storage of guns is the “proper” way to be “safe.”

In gun control discussions, those who advocate for gun control, including the radical extreme of a complete ban on them, do so from a position of emotional nonsense with no statistical evidence that banning guns stops violence. It might stop the occasional “accident.”

On the contrary, there is substantial evidence to show that creating “safe zones” and placing bans and restrictions on guns causes the complete opposite result than what was sold as a solution to a problem.

Gun rights advocates stand up in defense of the quasi-right to keep and bear arms by claiming this statistic to substantiate their position. Doesn’t it make sense that if prohibiting people the right to own a gun causes the incidence of gun violence to increase – say Chicago and D.C. – then this same logic should be used all across discussions about guns, gun rights, and gun safety.

This brings us to the question about promoting gun safety from a position of “educating” (followed by government demand) people about how to “properly” store a gun to keep it out of the reach of those who shouldn’t have access to it – child or criminal.

Where are the statistics and actual data that supports the claim that “proper” storage reduces or prevents access to guns that might be used by criminals or getting into the hands of children? And where are the data that supports any notion that locking up guns doesn’t affect a person’s ability to protect themselves in the case of needing quick and easy access to a gun.

I recall discussion in the Heller v. D.C. Supreme Court decision about whether it was constitutional to require any gun owner to have to keep all their guns under lock and key at all times. It was decided by that Court that it was, in fact not only unreasonable but unconstitutional for the government to enforce such a mandate. Of course the difference here is that one is a mandatory government problem and the other presented as voluntary, and yet we find a group labeled as a gun rights advocate, promoting voluntary gun lock-up.

There needs to be some real believable evidence presented before anyone should be discussing programs that will lead to the mandate that guns need locks and/or to be locked up.

If it is true that gun control laws only punish the law-abiding citizens, and an honest man might conclude that any kind of locking system is a restriction of the Second Amendment – a right to keep and bear arms, and in Maine’s case “shall never be infringed” – then isn’t promoting a bit of a red herring suggesting locks, that limit a person’s right to quick and easy access, in fact an “infringement” of that right?

I would like to see proof that the lives possibly saved by locking up guns is going to outweigh the loss of life and property because locks disallow quick and easy access in order to protect a person and his/her property.

But as always it has to be presented as a person’s choice. If the evidence is so strong to convince gun owners that locking up their guns is going to save lives, then let it remain their choice. I would hope that in Trahan’s suggestions of how we talk about gun safety, he includes easy access to gun safety classes for all. I grew up with guns throughout my home and my parents taught me all about them. That education works and we didn’t need, nor would it have been practical, to lock our guns up. Perhaps the money savings offered could be better spent in teaching everyone, including children, how to safely use a firearm.

And just for the record, even using Trahan’s mathematical calculations that determines with membership to certain clubs (elitism), discounts, and tax breaks, $400 for a gun safe is beyond my bank account and I’m sure that of many other people. It’s easy to toss out dollars and cents, without having much sense.

Just like how removing guns from the lawful citizens does nothing to prevent gun violence, teaching people to lock up their guns will do nothing to educate all people about how to use them and be safe around them.

Share

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