October 23, 2019

If Someone Killed My Son, How Would I Feel?

Among the dense forest of facts, lies, opinions, propaganda, brainwashing, ideology, nonsense, ignorance and anything else that’s worthless, comes an opinion piece published in a Maine newspaper in which the author asks, “If there was only one firearm-related murder in Maine this year, and it was your son, how would you feel?”

That’s very easy for me to answer…and no I have not lost my son to being shot. The answer is simple and to the point. I would be extremely angry. Angry, yes, that I lost my son, but most angry because there exists totalitarian, non thinking, brain dead idiots, lead by fascists like Michael Bloomberg and blindly followed by those too ignorant to understand they are headed toward a cliff where they will be asked to jump off and they will gladly do it. Their actions forbid my right to choose. What gives them that right? It matters not what my choices are, the mere fact that such nasty, rotten people feel entitled to prohibit me or my son, or anybody else, from having the right to choose how they can defend themselves against savages, the product of an immoral, hedonistic, diverse, tolerant, secular society.

No laws, regardless of their intent, are ever going to stop the criminal. If you believe there are more criminals today than yesterday, do you think this is so because there are more or less laws? Are there more criminals because the existing laws are not enforced? Do you think there are more criminals because society produces criminals for various reasons? And, does it matter?

What matters is what I have the right to do. That right is the right to choose. Nobody should be able to prohibit my right to choose how to protect myself and my family. No laws are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals who want them. That is a fact. Denying it doesn’t change it.

Take away my right to choose, and I will be most angry at people like Michael Bloomberg and those who don’t think and will not think and will react to emotions thinking if they increase the chances of my son being killed with a gun is somehow the right thing to do.

Sometimes life sucks. Making it suck for everybody else doesn’t change your suck factor.

Share

Day 56 – No Executive Orders

SWINDLE!

56 days of waiting! Nothing posted on the White House website about Obama’s 23 executive orders he lied to the public that he was signing.

As is typical, the wind has mostly stopped blowing into the sails of the pro and anti gun zealots in this debate over rights disguised as a need to protect the people from guns. However, it hasn’t stopped the ridiculous efforts of environmentalists and in some cases, pro gun enthusiasts who like their guns but don’t have a clue about what freedom of choice is about nor hypocrisy. Let’s take a look.

While the carcass is still warm, California, the model state for the New World Order, is attempting a state-wide ban on lead ammunition. Using only bought-and-paid-for, outcome-based “studies” on lead, those seeking the ban are claiming lead from bullets is really hazardous to the environment and can make kids sick.

Consider this statement in the article linked to:

Bill supporters, including pediatrician Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, say lead shot in animals consumed by humans is a public health issue because it puts children at risk of brain damage.

These already brain damaged believe that the risk of lead consumption from eating animals poisoned from lead (how many animals per capita have lead in them that don’t die? How many people eat wild game?) is worthy of banning lead ammunition while I’m willing to wager these same brain damaged are first in line to get their flu shots and vaccines from our trustworthy government and government-run health care system. And we haven’t even brought up the food they eat.

Quite a level of blind hypocrisy and ignorance I’d say.

And speaking of which, the tiny Maine town of Byron, population around 140 (YEE HAW!), voted down a proposed mandate that all households have a gun and ammunition. While some were opposed to the proposal for various reasons, even the writer of the proposal voted against it saying it needed tweaking.

When I first heard the town had voted down the proposal, I assumed it was because they saw that it was once wrong to mandate rights. I mean, one would assume people have a firm grasp on freedom of choice. But evidently not. The “tweaking” had more to do with becoming more of a hypocrite and doing what President Obama is famous for, creating exemptions, i.e. make a mandate and then create exemptions. Make sense?

One could argue that it’s a backdoor approach to protecting Second Amendment rights but the beauty of living in what was once a free country is that people should have the choice. As is contained in the video I posted on this website earlier today, Rand Paul explains that mandated regulations only take away a person’s right to decide for themselves what is best for them. Coming in the backdoor is no different than a direct frontal assault on rights.

Instead of amending this proposal to include exemptions as suggested, “exempt convicted felons, those with mental illnesses, and people with religious or moral reservations”, throw it in the garbage and spend the time and resources to make individual gun ownership a positive and lasting experience……BY CHOICE!

joerogan

Share

Pro Choice?

Share