September 25, 2017

Maine Rejects Bloomberg’s Fascist Anti-Gun Referendum

Maine voters rejected Michael Bloomberg’s fascist proposal to require background checks on all gun sales, including private sales, by lying, cheating and stealing to convince voters his proposal was nothing more than to increase background checks. The deceptive term used by anti-gun fascists is “universal background checks.” There was nothing universal about Bloomberg’s proposal and fortunately a majority of those voters in Maine who went to the polls, said no thank you to Bloomberg and his totalitarian “True Believers.”

The vote was 51.26% against and 48.74 with 502 of 603 precincts reporting. The vote was closer than true Second Amendment supporters and/or those who believe in a person’s right to choose how they will defend themselves and their property should have hoped for, but the proposal failed, this time around, nonetheless.

So what’s next? As I said before, even though Mainers clearly supported constitutional carry and now disprove of Bloomberg’s idea of “universal background checks,” it isn’t over. Debate during the campaign clearly showed that Maine voters support an increase in background checks, indicating they have ceded more of their rights once thought guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, thinking that background checks work and a right to self protection isn’t universal.

Mainers can expect, like with the bear hunting ban proposals, that fascists will return next time around in their assault on the freedoms of Americans. Why give them anything?

 

Share

Fighting Against Destruction of Rights While Promoting Destruction of Rights Makes Little Sense

While I support anyone who will work to protect a person’s God-given right to self protection and the right to choose how one should be able to protect themselves, I cannot, with a straight face, allow for the concession of a right to keep and bear arms while fighting against an absurd, fascist attempt to rid the state of Maine and others from gun ownership.

Question 3 isn’t about so-called (fake) universal background checks before a gun can be purchased, swapped or loaned. It’s about gun registry, as are background checks of any kind. Once guns are registered, the fascist government (the United States) will know how many and of what kinds of guns you own when they come to confiscate them. If you understand that principle, then simply supporting a background check – the only ones who get them are law-abiding citizen-subjects – is advocating for the destruction of a person’s right to protect themselves and their choice to do so. If you do not understand this principle, then you are one of the blinded who think “reasonable” prohibitions to the Second Amendment are necessary and proper, and while appearing to be a supporter of such a right, in reality, you are a contributor to its destruction, and ultimately, of yourself.

An example of this is found in articles published in Maine newspapers. I applaud the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine’s executive director, David Trahan, for his relentless work in trying to ward off a fascist billionaire, ordered by his bosses to come to Maine and stir up as much havoc as can possibly be done in order to pit people against each other, while at the same time, attempting to destroy the Second Amendment.  However…..

I see things a bit differently. Make no mistake, I vehemently oppose Michael Bloomberg’s effort. I also vehemently oppose gun registries of any kind. The requirement of a background check, even though we are lied to that the information used in a Federal Background Check is not retained for further use, is nothing more than a gun registry.

The Bangor Daily News carries an opinion piece from David Trahan. Trahan is not the only one fighting against Question 3 that indicates they would support background checks for private gun sales in Maine. Trahan writes: “The reason we strongly oppose Question 3 is because it includes firearm “transfers” as well as sales.” Let’s not kid ourselves. What this statement means is that if Bloomberg’s Question 3 did not included background checks on “transfers” they would support it. That is unfortunate.

The limitations and destruction of any and all rights, inalienable or government granted, all come from concession and compromise. Fascists like Michael Bloomberg, and the totalitarians that follow him, want to be the dictators of what, if any, rights and privileges people have. One reason they continue in their onslaught of human rights is because they know that with each proposal they gain something because the opposition thinks offering up a concession or a compromise will appease the lion and that the lion will go away – only until such time that it is hungry again. That’s how it works and that is how promoting such behavior at any level is supporting your own self destruction. It makes little sense.

Maine needs to stop Question 3. However, if that should happen, the lion will return again because, if nothing else, it has learned that they can easily win another limit, a regulation, with a person’s loss of right to buy and sell a firearm but not a transfer….this time.

Which will come first? The loss of the right to loan a gun to a friend, or the right to keep and bear arms. At some point, this continued ceding of inalienable rights will end in the all out prohibition of anyone’s right to keep and bear arms…well, except the fascists who make the laws and force them onto everyone else but themselves.

Oppose Question 3, but oppose all efforts to limit your right. It’s what works.

Share

“Yes on 3” Lies to Promote Their Totalitarian Ways

““Data compiled by ATF traced 97 of the 1,534 guns it recovered in 2008 in Massachusetts to Maine.” Silsby got it all wrong — when you look at ATF’s actual data of traced guns that originated in Maine and later recovered outside of Maine for 2008 in all of the United States, it was 248. Silsby and Mainers for Responsible Gun Ownership owe Maine people an apology.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Maine Law Enforcement are OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to Question 3

sammapquestion3

Share

Piling On Gun Laws When The Same Laws Already Exist

“…it is a felony under existing law, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment, for “prohibited persons,” including felons, domestic abusers, illegal aliens, those determined to be mentally incapacitated, and drug addicts to possess a firearm.

Likewise, existing law makes it a felony, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment, to transfer a firearm to someone you know or have reasonable cause to believe is a prohibited person.

Furthermore, the background-check requirement under Question 3 is so broad and the exceptions under Question 3 are so narrow, that Question 3 would criminalize innocent conduct by otherwise law-abiding, competent adults.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Retired Maine State Police Colonel Says Vote No on Question 3

There is a plea going out for funds to help keep the effort to stop Bloomberg. To donate:

Share

Question 3: If What We Are Told is True

universalbackgroundcheckIt’s a simple concept…to me anyway, but I struggle to understand how and why others cannot see what is so easily seen. We are told many things. Most people just believe and follow along, making no effort to even ask simple questions.

Maine faces a referendum on this November’s ballot – Question 3. It is presented by the fascist Michael Bloomberg, and his billions of dollars he got by lying, cheating and stealing. Why then should everyone not suspect his law proposal isn’t rooted in lying, cheating and stealing? Carefully crafted (and why hasn’t anyone questioned how the Maine attorney general allowed wording on a ballot initiative that is completely misleading?) the proposed law is presented in the form of a “universal background check.” What is a universal background check? Has it been defined, other than its use throughout media? We distrust media…they say…and yet we blindly listen and follow. We are sold the idea that a universal background check would reduce crime and gun violence. We know it won’t but…well, I shouldn’t say that, because, according to the same media, the majority of the people believe it will. Which brings me to my point.

Whether truth or fiction, we are told that the majority of Mainers (somewhere around 61%) think background checks are a good thing. (Note: I’ve never seen any data or evidence of what people think a background check is, or how any polling question was worded.) Nationwide, this same majority of opinion, is sold to us repeatedly by the press. We already have background checks but liars have successfully convinced enough people that there exists “loopholes” that magically allow the sale of guns to mass murderers.

If any of this was true, then it would seem honest to present a proposed law that would close any, so-called, loopholes that might allow the sale of a gun to someone attempting to skirt the mountain of laws on the books already that are supposed to stop criminal purchase and ownership of guns. Such is not the case. The proposed law is poorly crafted, or done so intentionally, confusing, and goes far beyond any notion of closing loopholes to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Why?

Common sense should lend people to question the real purpose of the proposed new law, but obviously it doesn’t to the majority of people. If Bloomberg and his little minions honestly have a concern about finding better and effective ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and would be criminals, they sure have a dishonest approach to it, where their proposals are only geared to the destruction of lawfully owned guns by law-abiding citizens. Doesn’t that or shouldn’t that raise some question in your mind?

Laws do not work and never have worked for criminals. Every law ever written was designed to stop the criminal but it doesn’t work. Insanely, this society insists that crafting laws, which are nothing other than destroyers of our rights and freedoms, will stop a criminal.

I contend that the Second Amendment should be upheld in the form that it was written…period. Lawful citizens are lawful because they have some semblance of a moral compass. Usually such people need only some guidance and leadership by example. Criminals are criminals…period. Can we ever learn this concept?

Share

Question 3: Maine’s “Cheap Date”

On November 8th, Maine citizens will go to the polls to cast their vote for several apocryphal referendum questions. From marijuana to the minimum wage, it appears liberal minds had their way with the ballot this year and did their best to mock the process.

However incredulous these questions may seem, there is no greater farce than that of Question 3, the “universal” background check initiative.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Question 3 Proponent’s Lies Revealed During Debate

Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine

To those that will be listening to the rebroadcast of the MPBN debate on Question 3 between David Trahan and Bobby Reynolds tonight at 8pm, there was a blatantly incorrect statement by Bobby Reynolds that needs correction. Link to MPBN to listen to rebroadcast:http://mainepublic.org/post/debate-ballot-question-3…

Bobby Reynolds claimed that Kittery Trading Post does free firearm transfers (background checks). This claim is absolutely FALSE. After calling Kittery Trading Post and confirming that the statement is false they sent us their rates below for background checks:

KTP Firearm transfer fees:
New Guns: $50
Used Guns: $20

Kittery Trading Post is already getting inquiries about free background checks. Bobby Reynolds and the Yes on 3 campaign owe Kittery Trading Post an apology.

In addition, Bobby Reynolds made claims that David’s statements about states having the power to establish gun registration databases, was false. Since the debate David has contacted a lawyer from Portland and confirmed that Bobby Reynolds was incorrect in this statement as well.

Maybe in the future the Yes on 3 campaign should get their facts straight.

Perhaps Maine voters should contact the Yes on 3 campaign
http://responsiblemaine.org/contact/ and tell them to keep the debates honest.

one

two

three

four

 

Share

The Question 3 Debate Continues

The sometimes idiocy that the debate on Question 3 brings to the surface continues. Not only are readers with half a brain subjected to the recurrence of thought and voice that giving away “reasonable” amounts of our supposed inalienable rights is good and an acceptable way to counter the fascists, but we also see when the media is completely biased toward the idealism created through debate on Question 3. Here’s another sampling.

The Portland Press Herald shows the world they support Question 3 by attempting to convince readers that donations in support of Question 3, totaling around $4 million dollars is equivalent to the $1 million raised in opposition to Question 3.

The Maine Wire continues its assault on making waves about how so-called “exemptions” in Question 3, as they worded it, “are actually landmines.” While most in opposition to Question 3 would agree that the bill is poorly written, or intentionally done so to make it easier to make criminals, as with most opinions found in the media, the focus is about the “exemptions” while all indicate a support for universal background checks – whatever that is. There will never be a right to keep and bear arms, and for the purpose of affording people a choice in how their inalienable right to self-defense will be carried out, provided we continue to show a willingness to give it away, even if one inch at a time.

For your information: I don’t think I would be misleading if I said that I doubt that an overwhelming majority of people who have voiced opinions, and subsequently will cast a ballot, have even bothered to take the time to read the entire text of the proposed law entangled in Question 3. The language that will appear on the ballot is extremely misleading and is not close to being a representation of what the bill’s text indicates. Please read it. Use this link for information about Question 3, including the full text of the proposed bill. Note: After landing on the page, I know it will be a tiresome act, but scroll down the page a short ways to find the full text of the proposed law.

The Bangor Daily News says that signage around the state indicates far more opposition to Question 3 than signs found in favor. They also suggest that Question 3 might be a determining factor in candidate elections.

Gun Owners of Maine reminds everyone that just one year ago, Maine voters opted for Constitutional Carry. How can it be that one year ago, a majority of voters wanted to be able to legally carry a gun concealed without a permit, and today, the media is suggesting that their exists strong support for Question 3?

gunownersmaine

And never fear. Tom has a cure for what ails you. One good swallow of my gun control mental drool elixir and nothing will appear the same again.

guncontrolelixer

Share