May 24, 2019

Brady Campaign’s Lies About Toddlers and Guns, and Hillary Says “Heller” Was About Toddlers

Do you recall the Humphrey Bogart movie, Casablanca? In that movie is a scene in which German soldiers demand that Rick’s Cafe be closed down. In Rick’s, in a back room, gambling takes place. Rick makes sure that the head of the prefecture gets his share of gambling money.

During the scene in which the prefect, played by Claude Rains, blows his whistle and declares the bar will be closed until further notice, gets handed his gambling payoff and says, “Shocked! I’m shocked to find gambling taking place in this establishment.”

Some might be shocked but those of us with a smidgen of knowledge understand that totalitarian groups, such as the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, lie, cheat and steal to get what they want. It certainly helps that they are supported by the U.S. Government to carry out their fascist agenda (did I ever tell you that historically fascism is the tool to achieve communism?).

It appears that in a brand new anti gun campaign launched by the puppets of the fascists, they use gun data of adults and claim it pertains to the number of “toddlers” killed or injured due to gun violence.

SHOCKED! SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

Meanwhile, the insane, cheating, lying, corrupt, murdering, sub-human Hillary tells people that the Heller v. District of Columbia Supreme Court case and ruling was about protecting “toddlers” from gun violence and that is why she says Heller should be overturned.

 

Share

Emily Got Her Gun But She Has No Right

EmilyMillerWhile at times it appears as though advances are being made to bring the Second Amendment back to an actual right, I have to question whether this is real progress or merely the Powers that are in control, allowing, thus creating the privilege to “Keep and Bear Arms”.

If the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights actually existed in the form that most of us have been taught, then, like other amendments and bills of rights, it wouldn’t contain the vast number of so-called “reasonable restrictions”. It is my opinion that when restrictions, whether deemed reasonable or unreasonable, are placed on actual rights, i.e. God-given rights (self defense), then man has co-opted, yes, stolen, that right and turned it into a privilege.

In most recent years, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) told us in Heller v District of Columbia, that the Second Amendment was an individual “right” to keep and bear arms. In that ruling and as part of Justice Scalia’s Majority Opinion, he stated that the Second Amendment was a guaranteed right of an individual to keep and bear arms. He further made note that the ruling had nothing to do with “reasonable” restrictions. Therefore, the lie became that the Second Amendment was not a right at all but a privilege disguised as a right.

We saw and heard mostly the same thing in NRA v. City of Chicago, where it was “unconstitutional” for the City of Chicago to prohibit the ownership of guns in the city. The SCOTUS basically said the City of Chicago didn’t have complete authority to deny the “right” to keep and bear arms. Nothing in both cities has really changed which reinforces the fact that gun ownership is a privilege, completely controlled by government. A right cannot be controlled by man. It just isn’t a right anymore.

As an example of the bureaucratic nonsense a United States Citizen must go through, I have been sort of following the story of Emily Miller, a journalist who went to the government officials in the District of Columbia to obtain a permit to carry a gun. It was pointed out often that it was next to impossible to get such a permit because anyone seeking a permit had to show a “legitimate” cause for needing one. Mind you the legitimacy is determined, not by what the Second Amendment says, but by the dictates of the chief of police, and we can only guess where his marching orders come from.

This morning I was watching the news and there was an update on Miller’s application process, that had taken well over a year…so far. She received a provisional permit, in which it then becomes valid after the completion of 16 or 18 hours of “training”. The training of course MUST be only that which is approved by and/or done by the District of Columbia.

Because the “reasonable restrictions” are so great, only 76 citizens have applied for a permit; 16 have been approved. Pathetic! An applicant must show that their life has been threatened by what the police deem to be a legitimate threat.

This is no RIGHT! We are being lied to and the Supreme Court’s rulings are a joke. Call the rulings what you wish and convince yourself it’s all good, but United States Citizens DO NOT have a “RIGHT” to keep and bear arms. If you possess a gun or guns, it is only because the Corporation allows you, so far, to do that.

Don’t kid yourself.

Share

Day 59 – No Executive Orders

BARRATRY!

Day 59, just shy of two months, the American people have waited to see the details of what the majority of people thought were President Barack Obama’s signed 23 executive orders on gun control. The President presented his puppet press with 23 ideas that related to guns and gun rights and promised he would draft 23 orders to implement these Second Amendment violations. He even created a dog and pony show, perhaps better described as an act of prestidigitation, complete with smoke and mirrors.

There are no executive orders on gun control posted on the White House website as promised.

Timothy P. Carney had an article a couple of days ago about how liberals, specifically those who present themselves as being opposed to gun ownership, aren’t all that interested in attacking the real problems surrounding violence, gun violence and mass murders in this country. Instead their attacks are focused on destroying a culture, or a lifestyle, that they dislike or don’t agree with. Should this really come as a shock to any of us?

Carney writes:

Gun control efforts are largely a culture-war offensive by liberals who dislike the parts of America that own guns and love guns. This meddling motivation shines through in the rhetoric of gun control advocates and in the laws they push.

For many gun owners, the firearm is not merely a tool for the practical purpose of self-defense. Nor is it simply recreational equipment, like a golf club. It’s a cultural signifier, and a totem of a worldview.

How true, but lets not lose sight of the fact that this same method of attack happens at some level regardless of political ideals. We can’t help it. We have been trained to think this way. Involuntary labels and mind manipulation have us programmed to think that we must opposed an idea simply because it comes from “the enemy” or the other side of politics and culture.

I would suppose that many of us give lip service to the idea that proposed bills that aim to limit Second Amendment rights aren’t about guns and gun violence. What we have difficulty in doing is expressing then what it really is about.

This idea of attacking a lifestyle or a culture is nothing new and certainly is not confined to Second Amendment issues. Choose your poison and it’s there. Somehow in our society we have reached a point where we have foolishly patted ourselves on the back as being this better-than-thou people of diversity and tolerance, and yet little of it exists. I recall learning about this perhaps as far back as high school as it dealt with Americans’ “Puritanical” self perspective. Somehow it was once believed to be of value to live a life of moral decency and yet as we spoke of our decency, with blinders fitting snugly, the realities of our lifestyle told a different tale.

It is of course my belief that this need that people have in attacking a culture we don’t like is purposely created and begins pretty much from the day we are born. With each successive generation the task of programming the people becomes easier as we are now witnesses of.

SWAG

Yesterday I shared of how Fascist Feinstein got her assault weapons bill passed through the Senate Committee. Below is a video of the exchange between Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Fascist Feinstein. Note the politics as usual. Sen. Cruz asks a question in which Fascist Feinstein never answers, instead gives a pity party speech about how wonderful and smart she is. The discussion then turns toward books instead of guns and ends with a confessional of how Heller v. District of Columbia gives Fascist Feinstein the right to decide that Americans don’t NEED over 2,700 guns she wants to ban.

fascistfeinstein

Share

Day 44 – No Executive Orders

ARTIFICE!

jamesmadisonexecutiveorders

44 days ago, a tyrant walked into a staged room, with children as his backdrop, stared into his teleprompter and lied to the American people….nay, the entire world. In his quest to spread fear and division among the people, he played a shell game of pretending to sign 23 executive orders on gun control. It was a lie! Nothing was signed and nothing has been posted on the White House webpage for executive orders. Why do we let this man continue his onslaught of perpetual deceit? The exact details of the President’s 23 orders can give us insight into the thoughts and intents of this man.

Field and Stream Magazine, interviewed Vice President Joe Biden, the man who claims to be the gun owners’ best friend for the past twenty some years and offers advice to women to buy a double-barrel shotgun for protection. Field and Stream asked Biden this question: “What do you think is the meaning of the Second Amendment? Do you think it is to allow citizens to be armed only to protect themselves from criminals, or was it written to allow the citizenry to offer defense against foreign invaders or oppressive, tyrannical government?”

And this was the V.P.’s answer:

It was written primarily for self-defense. The argument about whether or not it was, you know, that famous phrase of Jefferson’s, “The tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots,” which is often used by people who are super-enthusiasts—the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s an individual right. It is not a corporate right. It is not related to a well-established militia, a well-regulated militia. But it also has ruled that it is constitutional to own a gun individually for purposes of sporting, hunting, and/or self-defense.

Isn’t this man amazing? Not only is he a liar and gives poor advice to women about gun protection, he doesn’t understand history nor can he interpret a Supreme Court ruling. The Second Amendment was created for two purposes and I dare contend that the main purpose was for the defense against invaders and tyrants, both foreign and domestic. Over the years, lawmakers and crooked judges, politicians and lawyers worked relentlessly to show that the Second Amendment was ONLY for the purpose of maintaining militias. When the Supreme Court ruled in Heller v. District of Columbia that the Second Amendment was for the right of an individual, contrary to the lie V.P. Biden is promoting, Heller v. District of Columbia did not rule that the Second Amendment was NOT about protection from tyranny. It only clarified that it ALSO applied to the individuals rights, not exclusive of it. To think so would be admitting that only a tyrant, oppressive government, and/or foreign invader would come after individual owners of guns and not an armed militia.

We now have a case of wanting it both ways as far as a tyrant goes. If Biden can convince enough ignorant voters that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment is only for individuals and that the Government, meaning Obama and Biden, are the only ones who can decide what brand, how many and number of bullets that can be used, he is one step closer to filling the role of the very tyrant the Second Amendment was intended to defend us from.

Continue to heed my words. The Second Amendment is the last remaining deterrent from full scale takeover of One World Government.

Share

Day 30 – No Executive Orders

ARTIFICE!

One month, 30 days, and no executive orders appear on the White House web page.

This president lies so much nobody cares or pays attention anymore. Shame!

beararms

The other day a reader sent me a link to an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, written by David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman. The basic premise of the article was based on what I think is a fallacy that our Courts would never allow most of the gun control measures being proposed to stand. The authors write:

While the courts are still sorting out Heller’s implications, politicians should not assume that they have a free hand to restrict private gun ownership. Decades of case law interpreting and applying the other provisions of the Bill of Rights show that there are hard-and-fast limits on gun control.

The general framework is straightforward and certainly well-known to those who have studied (let alone taught) constitutional law. The government cannot abridge constitutionally protected rights simply to make a symbolic point or because it feels that something must be done. Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important. At the same time, any regulation must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.

And just who are they trying to convince here? Spoken as real lawyers, practicing in real Washington, D.C. and honestly believing what they write, I think. I suppose once there existed a real confidence in this nation that the separation of powers would do the job it was crafted to do. Not so anymore. Our government is run by a tyrant, who has exclaimed many times that he thinks the constitution is all wrong, that the framers got it all wrong and that he, the dictator, should have more power. He has also demonstrated his disdain for law and order, i.e the separation of powers by exerting use of legislative fiat, known as executive orders.

I’m not sure what the actual reasoning behind Rivkin and Grossman to have faith that the Courts wouldn’t stand for Obama and his cronies’ destruction of the Second Amendment. Yes, they cited Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago, to claim the Supreme Court loudly proclaimed the Second Amendment was written to protect the individual’s right to self defense and from a tyrannical government, as in the one we currently have. But that’s only a part of what actually took place.

Justice Scalia, in Heller v. District of Columbia, as majority opinion, stated that the Second Amendment was an individual guarantee but also made no bones about the fact that this decision had absolutely nothing to do with what limits can be placed on this right and by whom.

I also recall that shortly after President Obama laid out his plans for health care reform (Obamacare) many “experts” in law and the constitution swore up and down that there wasn’t a court in the nation that would uphold such an unconstitutional piece of legislation as Obamacare and for certain the Supreme Court would never tolerate this. Then magically on d-day, the SCOTUS upheld Obamacare when Justice Roberts jumped from one boat into the other.

And why would anybody have faith that the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing – the right thing being to follow the constitution and the laws written, when every decision almost always falls along party lines? The courts are non partisan? Want to buy a New York bridge?

There are many points in this Wall Street Journal article that are accurate and well written. However, having that kind of faith in our corrupt court system, is just a bit too boy scoutish to me.

Share