June 20, 2018

The NRA Are Hypocrites

Perhaps doing a slightly better job of pointing out the insanity of the newly-signed bill in Florida than the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the NRA shows their hypocrisy on their NRA-ILA website (surrounded by “Donate Now” buttons).

Evidently, the NRA completely supports parts of the new bill (as does the NSSF and others) including the blanket approval of actions to “educate” and “rat” on anyone “suspected” of having mental issues and ceding more fascist authority to the police to confiscate guns and ask questions later. As Trump stated, he preferred to confiscate guns first and worry about Due Process later. Nice…real nice! Leadership? Hmm!

This and a plea that states: “Contact your members of Congress and state lawmakers today and ask them to oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.”

Maybe the NRA should take a lesson out of their own playbook. If we lined up all the “gun control schemes” the NRA has been promoters and supporters of, it might make a fairly large book.

And it’s time to ask why the NRA thinks giving more power to cops to confiscate your property and at the same time allow governments to decide what is mental illness in the context of gun buying/ownership and what it is that is to be “educated” upon the people, isn’t supporting “gun control schemes” that impact law-abiding gun owners?

Wording is everything. The NRA states (above) that: “…oppose all gun control schemes that would only impact law-abiding gun owners.” (emboldening added) Are they saying that it is okay to support “gun control schemes” that impact gun owners and criminals together? Their historic record seems to indicate that, which in turn makes them an anti-Second Amendment organization. So, keep sending them money! MONEY-MONEY-MONEY!!!

The NRA also says that: “If we want to prevent future atrocities, we must look for solutions that keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others, while protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans.”

According to how the NRA operates those solutions all involve giving up some of your rights. I guess they call that compromise. Either it’s a right or it’s a meted out privilege. Have we already forgotten that a previous administration in the White House believed that GIs returning from war who sought any kind of emotional assistance should be banned from owning a gun? Apparently so! What could possibly go wrong when Government decides your state of mind? Who decides theirs?

And is the NRA suggesting that we take away a person’s right to “innocent until proven guilty” and “Due Process” as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist; a fairytale that it will prevent further crimes by “mental” people?

The answer appears to be yes. It is obvious (to me anyway) that the NRA pisses on the Second Amendment and then tells people it’s raining, so why wouldn’t they be willing to offer to give up even more of your rights to the sacrificial lamb (money and power)?

But if forget. You think the NRA is your best friend. He ain’t much of a friend, but he’s the only one you have…right?

Share

It’s What’s Wrong With Those Pretend Second Amendment Advocates

I tire of reading and hearing idiots say that they might realize groups like the NRA and the NSSF aren’t perfect but they are better than nothing. Are they? Is it better to be slowly eaten to death by ants than to just have it over with in an instance? The end result is going to be the same.

Perhaps some don’t want to talk about the realization that all of these fake Second Amendment groups are no different than any other group – they’re in it for the money. Yeah, that’s right. It’s the money stupid.

You see, groups like these can’t be real supporters of the Second Amendment because there is not so much money in it. The broader the base of their support the more money. So, instead of simply standing up and saying I have an inalienable right to choose how I will defend myself and my property and that choice might involve a gun, a hatchet, a golf club, or a Bible, they appeal to where the most money is. You know, those “reasonable” limits to what God gave you even before you were born?

They want your money…period!

Do you need more proof? Or is it more comfortable to just pretend they are on your side? Your choice.

Today the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) sent out an email asking that you contact Florida Governor Rick Scott and ask him to veto the recently passed bill that demolishes your inalienable rights and those granted to you by your government.

Yesterday I reported on the passage of SB7026, a bill that would place your mental status in the hands of some government agent who is, perhaps, more insane than you are. This bill would rebuild the school in Parkland where the latest shooting took place – I suppose to make sure to remove any evidence that might incriminate the bastards who actually did the shooting. In addition, insane propagandized automatons are going to “educate” more and more of you to teach you how to rat someone out you might think is mentally deranged because…GASP… they own a gun.

If you are in favor of this fascist government deciding whether or not you are insane, then you’ll love the idea that this bill gives YOUR heroes, the cops, more power to confiscate your property because some fascist/totalitarian has determined that you shouldn’t possess a gun. I’m sure while they are taking your guns, they’ll pause for a moment and gun down a few of you who they THOUGHT was armed and dangerous. You and 9/11 created them.

And there’s more, much more but I won’t bore you with such insignificant details because I know you don’t care. Trust your heroes!

So, back to the NSSF. They ask members/readers to contact the Florida governor for a veto because of the age restriction included in this bill. The new law raises the age to 21 as a minimum age to buy a gun. With that and a 3-day waiting period, what’s to complain about?

The NSSF writes: “The National Shooting Sports Foundation supports measures to increase school security and ensure that the mentally ill and prohibited persons are unable to obtain firearms; however, we strongly oppose any proposal to increase the age from 18 to 21 for the purchase of long guns. Raising the minimum age to 21 to purchase a shotgun or a rifle for lawful purposes is an infringement on the constitutional rights of young adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In the United States, you are an adult when you turn 18. Your constitutional rights are fully vested, including the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms. This unconstitutional age-based gun ban would deny young adults their right to self-protection.”

Evidently, they are NOT, I repeat NOT, supporters of the Second Amendment or your right to be able to defend yourself how and when you choose. To the NSSF, evidently, all they care about is the age limit of when you can buy a gun. Is that because this would severely cut into the profits of the gun manufacturing industry who are probably heavy supporters (give gobs of money) to groups like the NSSF and NRA? Don’t tell me you never thought to that.

They tell us they support school security and keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (they discount themselves of course) but instead of reading and listening to the lying, cheating, frauds in the Media and from these political groups, why not take some responsibility and go read the damned bill that just passed. There’s nothing in it that will do any of what they say they support…nothing! But the rhetoric and talking points of the bill appeal to a broader base of people = more money, more money!

Upon discovery, an honest person would then ask why is the NSSF only speaking out asking the governor to veto the bill because of the age restriction? Why aren’t they asking that the entire bill is vetoed and never brought up in the Florida Legislature or any other legislature in this country? It’s because if they did, they would lose the financial support from all those who simply love to give the government all their rights and turn them into meted-out privileges. Got to think about the salaries and retirement benefits.

If the NSSF and the NRA whittled their membership down to only the true understanders of inalienable rights and government-issued rights, there would be virtually nobody left to pay their big salaries.

Oh what, you thought it was only those Leftist (wink-wink) groups that paid out big salaries to help do the bidding for the Government? Ha!

If you haven’t figured it out yet, I’m pretty much completely fed up with the country and the world in general. I’m fed up with morons who thrive on their own efforts to hang themselves, to whittle away at their own existence, incapable of thinking beyond the end of their modeled noses. Soon Artificial Intelligence will tell them when to wipe when they are finished…you know what.

There are zero reasons to place an ounce of trust in any man-made government…ZERO, ZERO, ZERO. And yet, it’s exactly what you do. I just don’t understand.

But forget about what I say and write. You know better than I do. You have come to love and trust your servitude. Now live with it. Don’t look for me there.

Someone one day asked me what I had to fear because I supported the Second Amendment. I told them they had it all wrong (which is typical). I fear nothing. I have no reason to fear anything. “For the Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want….”

It’s not so much about my love affair with a gun or guns. I worship but only the True Yahweh who gave me a long time ago, real liberty, real freedom, and real rights. For now, I have to live in this world and as long as I do, I will do what I can to expose the wrongs, the fraud, the corruption, the evil, the Satanic, and protect those rights given to me by my Creator.

If my words have offended you that’s too bad. I would rather that you woke up than went down with the ship you are on.

None of us can protect our rights when we work so hard to give them all away.

I just don’t get it.

 

Share

Obama and his “ILK” – Please Define “Obama’s ILK”

*Editor’s Note* – If I understand the author correctly, it is “Obama and his ilk” that want to make more laws and confiscate guns. While the author here hits on many valid points, he seems to fail to mention a few vital points that might give clearer meaning to all this.

First, is the failure to define or determine where the ideas of gun grabbing come from. Is it just “Obama and his ilk?” Surely gun confiscation by the U.S. Marxist government has been going on for many, many years. Obama didn’t write all those laws ripping to shreds the Second Amendment. Who pulls Obama’s puppet strings and the many presidents before him that have promoted “reasonable” gun confiscation laws? Who pulls the puppet strings of the 536 members of Congress that push for and vote for these “reasonable” gun confiscation laws. Who is responsible for propagandizing the America people that causes them to believe sensible and “reasonable” gun laws are necessary? And are they? Who decided that? Sure it couldn’t have been just “Obama and his ilk.”

Second, if it is true that “Obama and his ilk” are the “gun grabbers” then maybe the author should define for us readers “his ilk.” Who are the “ilk?” Are any of the 108-million “law-abiding gun owners” part of Obama’s ilk? Is anyone who agrees to or believes that “reasonable” gun confiscation laws are necessary, part of the “ilk?” Yes, please. Define “ilk,” for surely it is impossible to move forward or backward until someone steps up and tells us what defines the “ilk” and what action or inaction is needed that intrudes into the realm of anyone promoting gun confiscation that prequalifies them as “ilk?”

Third, not once does the author mention anything about a person’s inalienable right to self protection. Is that belief absent American values now, replaced by the many whom the author describes as those calling for more and more laws?

I think I read someplace that the United States now has something in the order of 90,000-plus pages of laws – all thought “reasonable” by someone I’m sure. Certainly there was money to be made doing it. Where once, God-fearing men understood and respected “inalienable” rights. Now with no more fear of God, which results in the displacement of respect, it has been replaced by 90,000 pages of law. How is that working out? I know I’m kidding myself to think in this world I’m a free man anymore.

And lastly, perhaps the author gives us a real hint into his own finger-pointing belief system – a belief perhaps he doesn’t even recognize or want to. After all, I am taught that my beliefs are right and yours wrong? Don’t tread on me. Tread on my neighbor instead.

I highlighted the author’s comment below in the article teaser.

Is this a factual statement? Evil exists and will until such time that God has had enough. To claim that gun confiscation WOULD prevent mass shootings, is perhaps as dishonest as claiming more laws will limit violent crime. Isn’t this to assume that gun confiscation is more powerful than the hand of God? Evil exists and if the gun is confiscated, something will replace that tool. Complete gun confiscation is just another law.

A closer examination of the society we have created tells the real story and yet it is avoided. Why? I contend it is because people love their decadent, violent and perverted lifestyles. Much the same reason Congress never seriously attacks crime in the Halls of Congress. Congress is a reflection of our society. Opening a real investigation will cause others to examine those calling for the investigation. Lip service is cheap, results and accomplishments are absent and will remain that way until we as individuals turn our affections back to God and away from man. Until then, NOTHING will change and will only get worse.

…shootings are carried out by less than half of one-tenth of 1 percent of people. Yet Obama and the gun grabbers are targeting all of the 108 million or so law-abiding gun owners for the crimes of less than one-tenth of 1 percent. But because those who would commit a gun crime are criminals and, by definition, criminals don’t obey laws, no amount of new laws would prevent mass shootings, short of complete confiscation.

Source: What Obama didn’t say in his gun-grabbing rant – Personal Liberty®

Share

Day 86 – No Executive Orders

BREACH OF TRUST!

After 86 days of false promises on executive orders for gun control, there still remains absolutely nothing posted on the White House website concerning those orders.

It is my opinion that in what is commonplace among failed governments, the people, of whom are supposed to be the governing body in this country, have through progressive teaching, a failure to learn history, while taking their eyes off the Creator, thus losing their way, have no comprehension of the first inalienable right of self protection and in conjunction any understanding as to what our inalienable rights are or the importance to sustaining a moral direction that leads to a prosperous life.

In listening to the leaders and citizens of this country in the past few years, and in particular of late, in discussing such things as forcing people to be slaves to President Obama’s healthcare plan, along with the destruction of gun rights, as well as all our rights, I am constantly reminded of what is written in the book, “The Two Republics”, by A.T. Jones.

Below is a very important excerpt that helps to explain what was the mindset of the Founding Fathers and the root of much discussion about the need to craft the Declaration of Independence and the national Constitution. It is incredible to me that in just a mere 235 or so years, Americans have very little understanding of the importance of independence, self determination, liberty and inalienable rights, all the while believing they, somehow, have a right to take away the rights of others.

“The Two Republics”, by A.T. Jones – excerpt:

In declaring the objects of government to be to secure to the people the rights which they already possess in full measure and inalienable degree, and to effect their safety and happiness in the enjoyment of those rights; and in declaring the right of the people, in the event named, to alter or abolish the government which they have, and institute a new one on such principles and in such form as to them seems best; there is likewise declared not only the complete subordination but also the absolute impersonality of government. It is therein declared that the government is but a device, a piece of political machinery, framed and set up by the people, by which they would make themselves secure in the enjoyment of the inalienable rights which they already possess as men, and which they have by virtue of being men in society and not by virtue of government; — the right which was theirs before government was; which is their own in the essential meaning of the term; and ‘which they do not hold by any sub-infeudation, but by direct homage and allegiance to the Owner and Lord of all’ (Stanley Matthews), their Creator, who has endowed them with those rights. And in thus declaring the impersonality of government, there is wholly uprooted every vestige of any character of paternity in the government.

In declaring the equality of all men in the possession of these inalienable rights, there is likewise declared the strongest possible safeguard of the people. For this being the declaration of the people, each one of the people stand thereby pledged to the support of the principle thus declared. Therefore, each individual is pledged, in the exercise of his own inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so to act as not to interfere with any other person in the free and perfect exercise of this inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any person who so acts as to restrict or inter with the exercise of any other person’s right to life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, denies the principle, to the maintenance of which he is pledged, and does in effect subvert the government. For, rights being equal, if one may so act, every other one may do so; and thus no man’s right is recognized, government is gone, and only anarchy remains. Therefore, by every interest, person as well as general, private as well as public, every individual among the people is pledged in the enjoyment of his right to life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, so to conduct himself as not to interfere in the least degree with the equal right of every other one to the free and full exercise of this enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ‘For the rights of man, as man, must be understood in a sense that can admit of no single exception; for to allege an exception is the same thing as to deny the principle. We reject, therefore, with scorn, any profession of respect to the principle which, in fact, comes to us clogged and contradicted by a petition for an exception….To profess the principle and then to plead for an exception, let the plea be what it may, is to deny the principle, and it is to utter a treason against humanity. The rights of man must everywhere all the world over be recognized and respected.’ (Isaac Taylor)

From “The Two Republics by A. T. Jones.

Share

Rome Burns While Congress Struggles To Save Junk Mail

At what point in our history did it become a good thing to compromise everything good away? So many today lament that the United States Congress is so dysfunctional that it can’t compromise on anything and get anything done. I suppose this sort of thought goes hand in hand with comments made a few years ago by Maine’s Senator Olympia Snowe when she stated that her job was to go to Washington and write bills.

Alas, the great divide, that nasty lack of compromise by members of the U.S. Congress. Perhaps if we had never acquired this fabricated “need” for compromise, a far lot less would have been “done” – defined better as destroyed – in Congress and we wouldn’t be finding ourselves in the messes we are currently. For certainly doing nothing is far superior than destroying the lives, liberties and happiness of others for the sake of “getting something done”. Senator Snowe labels herself a Republican, not that labels pertaining to party affiliation mean anything anymore, and yet she believes it’s her job to go to Washington and write bills. Probably a sensible person would have fingers left over uncounted if they named all the necessary laws that have been crafted since the signing of the Declaration and the U.S. Constitution. (Note: Almost nobody in America today would agree with that statement.) It is not taught, nor is it even recognized that for every bill Congress writes, that’s one less freedom you have and that much more power and control you have willingly ceded to a government that is untrustworthy.

Need I remind the people that the vast majority of those legislative measures get their roots from those who find a need to control others, expressing their lack of faith in their fellow man. Thomas Jefferson found considerable faith in his fellow man. Once, he and John Adams were arguing about the role of government’s power over the people. Jefferson said to Adams, “You have a disconcerting lack of faith in your fellow man Mr. Adams, and in yourself, if I may say.” Adams snapped back, “Yes, and you display a dangerous excess of faith in your fellow man, Mr. Jefferson.”

Perhaps Adams was right. Maybe Jefferson placed a bit too much faith in his fellow man but to maintain the sovereign independence of the human being, a person must retain the promise, as from God, the means in which to discover and appreciate such freedoms and inalienable rights without the interference of government. Thomas Jefferson, in a further expression of his certitude of man’s aptitude to do what’s right, wrote: “An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.”

And yet, the people of this day, the victims of Jefferson’s concerns over the tyranny of dishonest men exercising power over others, can seemingly only echo the moans of others who castigate the lack of compromise as reason for not taking more from government.

In America today, debt piles up at immeasurable speed. God told his people, “Owe no man anything.” I suppose one of the reasons for accumulated debt is the result of taking our eyes off God as a country. Very serious issues face the American people. I question how much any of them understand the extent of this seriousness and yet our Congress, every one, fight tooth and nail for themselves and only themselves. Why do we insist on thinking otherwise?

Recall, if you will, several years ago when the people of this country asked Congress if there was something that could be done about receiving unwanted telephone calls from telemarketers, etc. Our self-aggrandizing Congress crafted a law prohibiting such calls. It was even done giving people a choice to enlist in the program or not. However, I cannot fail to mention that Congress exempted themselves from any such law. This way they could, in their intrusive, selfish and disgusting ways, intrude on your privacy anytime they saw fit in order to promote their own lies and propaganda.

And today, while Congress fights and argues like spoiled rotten brats to save the Postal Service, make no mistake about the fact they will do everything in their power to screw you over and protect their own self interests. While Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins regurgitate and swallow again that there needs to be, “some kind of compromise on amendments”, Senator Harry Reid promised that senior citizens wouldn’t be denied their junk mail.

Sen. Reid, hiding behind a chameleonic lie, attempting to convince people he gives two pieces of a rat’s ass about senior citizens, I’m sure was doing as Doug Powers at MichelleMalkin.com said and, “Why am I guessing that the “junk mail” Reid is worried about being delivered to his elderly constituents are the letters from Harry Reid’s office?”

This appears about all our Congress is capable of doing, which may, in and of itself, be a good thing. While it’s too late now, I just wish there were never compromises made on 99.9% of anything. I was trying to explain this to my mother one day and so I put it in terms I thought she would understand. I hope some readers here can as well. I asked her if compromise is such a good thing in order to “get something done”, as she had worded it to me, then I suppose being a believer in God Almighty, a born again Christian and one who stands firmly on the word of God, you would be willing to compromise the promises of God in order that you can better get along with other religions?

For now, it is probably best that the president go on permanent vacation and send Congress home for recess, while suspending all of their pay. For we have reached a point where I certainly find greater solace in this government doing absolutely NOTHING, than to keep forcing onto me the compromises “in order to get something done”.

Tom Remington

Tom Remington

Share