February 22, 2019

“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

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