May 25, 2018

What If The Second Amendment Was Repealed?

“What would that be like, the repeal of the Second Amendment? Would it markedly transform our way of life? Would acts of unspeakable violence cease? Would civility and compassion return in our deeply divided country and troubled culture? Would discipline of children return to homes? Would there cease to be drug use and mentally troubled individuals? Would there be a return to moral values in a country that is so adrift? Would sex and violence stop being promoted in television, movies and video games? Would our citizenry be held accountable for its own behavior? Would there truly be consequences for lawlessness and would the rule of law mean something?”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Springfield Armory Severs Ties With Dick’s Sporting Goods and Field and Stream

Sometimes the exercise of one right against another right can become quite costly. I also wasn’t aware that Dick’s and Field and Stream were affiliated. Too bad for Field and Stream.

“Springfield Armory is severing ties with Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, in response to their hiring a group for anti-Second Amendment lobbying.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Historic Perspective on the Second Amendment Does Little to Stop Mincemeat Making of It

I found Mark Alexander’s piece published at the Patriot Post to be one of the better attempts at explaining the historical background of the founding of the Second Amendment. This piece also includes information from what is described as an expert on linguistics who, it is claimed, understands the use of words and the structure of the Second Amendment at its birth to deliver an unquestioning description of what it meant.

What does this historical perspective actually do that is going to stop what is being described as  “Deconstruction and Repeal of the Second Amendment?” My short answer would be, nothing really.

Whether it is believed or not that the Second Amendment or any other amendment cannot be “amended” matters little when you give what’s been happening an honest assessment. Alexander writes, “Given the preeminent status of the Second Amendment and the growing chorus of leftists calling to amend it until they can rally enough populist support to fully repeal it, we should be clear that our Founders never intended for this right to be infringed.”

Well, what does that mean precisely – to never be infringed?

A dictionary defines the word infringe as: “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).” and “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.”

In referencing the Online Etymology Dictionary for the word infringe, we find this: “mid-15c., enfrangen, “to violate,” from Latin infringere “to damage, break off, break, bruise,” from in-“in” (from PIE root *en “in”) + frangere “to break” (from PIE root *bhreg- “to break”). Meaning “encroach” first recorded c. 1760. Related: Infringedinfringing.”

The American Language expert says that the right to keep and bear arms is not granted to the people by this Amendment to the Constitution – that it reaffirms the assumption that there is no question of a person’s God-given right. He is directly quoted as saying: “The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional..”

When the expert was asked to present the Second Amendment as it might appear if it were written today, he writes: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”

It is interesting that he chose to replace the word “infringed” with “abridged.”

A dictionary defines abridged as: “shorten (a book, movie, speech, or other text) without losing the sense.” and “curtail (rights or privileges).”

The Online Etymology Dictionary tackles abridged in this manner: “c. 1300, abreggen, “make shorter, shorten, condense,” from Old French abregierabrigier “abridge, diminish, shorten” (12c., Modern French abréger), from Late Latin abbreviare “make short,” from Latin ad “to” (see ad-) + breviare “shorten,” from brevis “short, low, little, shallow” (from PIE root *mregh-u- “short”).

Abbreviate is the same word directly from Latin. The sound development that turned Latin -vi- to French -dg- is paralleled in assuage (from assuavidare) and deluge (from diluvium). Of writing, “shorten by omission,” late 14c. Related: Abridgedabridging.”

Puzzling to me, after this author goes to such lengths to substantiate the exact meaning of the 27 words of the Second Amendment, he would write that there have been no successful attempts to “infringe” on the Second Amendment. He writes: “Historically, there have been no successful attempts to modify the Second Amendment’s assurance of the innate rights of the people to defend their Liberty, but there are now threats to do so.” This was followed by: “That notwithstanding, Second Amendment rights have most certainly been subject to much alteration by judicial misinterpretation and outright activism.”

Is this author suggesting that he is willing to accept those “reasonable” limits on a right he just finished defending as one that is clear-cut, unamendable and shall NEVER be infringed, disregarding all these actions as not infringements? I don’t get it! Isn’t this a direct contribution in and of itself toward the “Deconstruction and Repeal of the Second Amendment?” Many of the same people all aghast at the brazen attempts of late to destroy the Second Amendment fully support putting more and more restrictions on a right this author just described as one that was intended to never be changed. Isn’t this contradictory and perhaps even insane behavior? I’ll say it again, I don’t get it!

Upon examination of the word “infringe” and the American Language expert who might change that word to “abridge” if he was attempting to rewrite what the Second Amendment said in 1789 and how it might be worded today, how can any real supporter of the Second Amendment be willing then, with a God-given right that the Founding Fathers stated as unalienable and “shall never be infringed” see every hurdle in place in order for a lawful citizen to keep and bear arms, as “no successful attempts to modify the Second Amendment?”

What then is the purpose of having the Second Amendment or any other amendment if it can be amended without amending it and infringed upon without infringing upon it?

I understand that probably the author is attempting to delineate between court rulings and other legislative actions that place limits on the Second Amendment as being different than actually changing the wording of the Second Amendment or a complete tossing of the Amendment into the garbage.

Offering all this glamorous historical perspective on what the Founding Fathers meant and what the words and phrases at the time meant is certainly interesting, but so long as the Congress and the Courts can simply ignore any and all of the Amendments and make them into what they damn well please, while Americans applaud their efforts, what good is understanding what any of the Founders meant?

Isn’t this just more of the same of Congress exercising their powers of Article I, Section 8 “To make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

This is easily interpreted to mean Congress will do just as they damned well please. You lose!

Paper documents worthy of nothing I’d say!

Share

Bank of America’s Decision to Sever Ties with Certain Gun Manufacturers Blasted by Free-Market Leader

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan Refuses to Say How Much Money Investors Will Lose Because of His Decision to Join Those Who Oppose Second Amendment

Charlotte, NC/Washington, DC – At today’s annual meeting of Bank of America investors, held in Charlotte, North Carolina, a representative of the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) – the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – confronted notoriously liberal banking CEO Brian Moynihan over the company’s financially irresponsible decision to sever ties with certain gun manufacturers.

“Moynihan and Bank of America’s leadership team have decided to place liberal virtue signaling ahead of the company’s investors,” said National Center General Counsel and FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq., who attended today’s meeting and confronted Moynihan. “This is a gross violation of the company’s fiduciary duty to its investors. If Moynihan wants to lobby against gun rights on his own time, that’s one thing. But he instead put Bank of America’s significant financial and institutional weight behind a policy movement aimed at harming or abolishing the Second Amendment. By using his position as CEO in such an overtly political manner, he is abdicating his responsibility to act in his company’s best interests. He doesn’t accurately speak for all of the company’s investors and customers – which surely include millions of Second Amendment supporters.”

At the meeting, Danhof noted:

[T]he company is joining a list of corporations following the liberal whim of the moment and not looking out for the best interests of long-term shareholders. The company is also lending its voice to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment.

Let’s take a look at how another famous investor addressed this issue. CNBC asked Warren Buffett about corporations distancing themselves from the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers and how Berkshire Hathaway would respond. Buffett replied: “I don’t believe in imposing my views on [our] employees and a million shareholders. I’m not their nanny on that… I don’t think that Berkshire should say we’re not going to do business with [gun folks]. I think that would be ridiculous.”

Danhof then asked:

Can you tell us – your investors – exactly how much money we stand to lose because of this decision, and explain why you have this right while Warren Buffett has this wrong?

To read Danhof’s full question, as prepared for delivery, click here. (Note that Danhof shortened the question at today’s meeting due to a strict time limit that was imposed on investors – except for Jesse Jackson, who was allowed to ramble well past the time allowed.)

“Today Bank of America made it clear that it is proud to lend its voice to the anti-Second Amendment community. If you are a gun owner, a member of the National Rifle Association, in the gun or ammunition business, or simply a supporter of the Constitution, it’s my impression that Bank of America doesn’t want your business,” said Danhof. “And perhaps those constituencies ought to take the company up on that score.”

Audio of Danhof’s exchange with Moynihan is available with this link.

“I think most folks in the financial press would be interested to know why Bank of America’s Moynihan thinks he is right on this issue and Warren Buffett is wrong,” noted Danhof. “Maybe a financial journalist can follow up with the company and get an answer to that question – because it’s clear he doesn’t have enough respect for his investors to give us a straight answer.”

Following the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, and the ensuing corporate backlash against the National Rifle Association, Danhof wrote a commentary describing corporate America’s repeated pattern of joining with the liberal cause of the day. As published in The Federalist, Danhof noted:

It’s an all too common pattern. Liberal politicians and the media take up a cause. Left-wing activist groups mobilize to pressure corporations. Corporate America joins the fray, and their support is used to bolster and justify the cause. It’s a circular echo chamber, but it’s effective…

By and large, conservative Americans leave business alone because they realize private enterprise drives the economic engine that keeps America thriving. However, as corporate America continues to join with the left to erode constitutional protections and traditional beliefs that conservatives hold dear, silence is no longer an option.

Click here to read Danhof’s entire commentary.

This meeting marks the 12th shareholder meeting of 2018 in which FEP has participated.

To book an interview with Danhof or another National Center representative, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-0269 or (703) 477-7476.

Launched in 2007, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project focuses on shareholder activism and the confluence of big government and big business. Over the past four years alone, FEP representatives have participated in over 100 shareholder meetings – advancing free-market ideals about health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers’ rights and other important public policy issues. As the leading voice for conservative-minded investors, FEP annually files more than 90 percent of all right-of-center shareholder resolutions. Dozens of liberal organizations, however, annually file more than 95 percent of all policy-oriented shareholder resolutions and continue to exert undue influence over corporate America.

FEP activity has been covered by media outlets including the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Variety, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, Drudge Report, Business Insider, National Public Radio and SiriusXM. FEP’s work was prominently featured in Wall Street Journal writer Kimberley Strassel’s 2016 book The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Silencing Free Speech (Hachette Book Group).

Danhof’s latest commentary, on the recent Walt Disney shareholder meeting where his actions resulted in Joy Behar’s public apology for suggesting Christianity is a mental illness, is available here.

Share

When Businesses Practice Political Idealism

We have all seen it before. Some business decides that in protest of some political idealism they will no longer sell a connected product or service. The latest in a long list of bad business decisions seem to be when the manufacturers of the “Yeti” products of coolers and hot/cold cups decided to no longer sponsor some of the National Rifle Association’s activities.

Of course, that’s their decision.

But what if? What if everyone decided to base their productivity, manufacture, and creativity on some pie-in-the-sky political idealism? Or maybe they always have and none of us are even aware of it.

Think about how much different the world might have been…Or not!

 

Share

By Whom is “Due Process of the Law” Administered?

Pulling the “Due Process” card is about as effective as whipping out the old adage…”I have a right…” I’m guilty as are most all others, only due to ignorance I suppose.

I got thinking more about this Due Process issue after reading an article this morning by Maine Senator Eric Brakey published in the Maine Wire. The foundation of Brakey’s piece is rooted in a proposed “Community Protection Order” legislation that effectively would allow for the “unconstitutional” confiscation of “weapons” from anyone the “court” deems as a possible “problem” and/or suspect to violent behavior. What could possibly go wrong?

What’s wrong with this political ideology rolled into a bill proposal is that it smells terribly of what many of us like to refer to as the violation of “Due Process.”

Brakey writes: “…a gun confiscation order may be issued “ex-parte,” which means without any notice. No due process. No opportunity to defend yourself in a court of law.

With gun confiscation orders, you are only entitled to learn your rights have been stripped away when the SWAT team comes to your door to “collect” your guns.”

What is Due Process? Is this some magic protection act that ensures that nothing will ever go wrong? Is Due Process as effective as any other element of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights?

According to Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, Due Process is as defined in brevity: “The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures.” (emboldening added)

Written by James Hirby and published at the Black’s Law Dictionary website, we read: “Law Enforcement & Protection American criminal justice, a powerful engine of public safety and social control, operates under a balanced constitutional system to ensure that it does not become oppressive. The three aims of government stated in the preamble are relevant to criminal justice: (1) ‘establish justice’ – establish courts of law and other means to allow individuals to pursue justice when conflicts arise; (2) ‘insure domestic tranquility’ – create the means to suppress riots, prevent crime and secure public safety or order; and (3) ‘secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’  Order and liberty are both necessary for a stable society yet often conflict with one another.” (emboldening added)

Isn’t this all simply subjective idealism open to abuse by anyone with money and power to upset this “balanced constitutional system?” If order and liberty are both necessary for a stable society, then what happens to order and liberty when those two subjective terms no longer fit some or all of our political narratives or social ideals? Due Process be damned!!

While it is easy to claim the rights to Due Process, it is equally easy to claim the rights to keep and bear arms and the freedom of choice as to how to defend me, my family, and my property.

Due Process of the Law is nothing more than precisely what it says. Subjective idealism pounded into our brains from birth wants to incorrectly tell us that Due Process protects us from tyrannical laws (oppression) and that some mythical “balanced constitutional system to ensure that it does not become oppressive” guarantees us that we are protected.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!!

Due Process is nothing more than carrying out the laws created by our governments. We have so many terrible arguments and excuses of how the governmental entities have no right to make unconstitutional laws, yet we ignorantly cherry-pick only those bits and pieces of the Constitution that fit our own narratives, failing to understand that Congress can “make all laws which are necessary and proper” (Article I Section 8) in order to exercise the power they gave themselves when they wrote the Constitution. Congress will and does simply craft yet another law because they have the power to do so and as such render Due Process useless. It is THEIR Due Process, not yours or mine.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!!

What may have been your grandfather’s “Due Process” doesn’t even carry the same DNA as today’s Due Process and at the rate things are changing and that “balanced constitutional system” gets more and more out of whack – to those with sense enough to see it – we have as much hope remaining to cling to Due Process as we do the Second Amendment or any other Constitutional article that might stand in the way of the Global Power Structure.

Due Process is a subjective matter and was designed as such. Due Process is as much as society will tolerate and the government can get away with. Even though society believes that the Constitution gives them Due Process and that this “balanced constitutional system” works, they are wrong. We even constantly hear of those screaming to get out and vote in order to get those wanting to upset that “balanced constitutional system” (rigged) out of office and replaced with another clone/drone and yet, nothing ever changes. Oppression and tyranny march forward in a slow and methodical pace, hidden behind a shroud of watered-down constitutional rights and due process.

Invoking Due Process is a worthless instrument. So long as Congress “makes all laws which are necessary and proper” and voting in new blood doesn’t change anything, then we are left with but one choice – continue to convince ourselves that we are guaranteed Due Process, along with all those other “rights” meted out by men for slaves.

Due Process be Damned!!!!!

 

 

Share

When The “Democratic” Process Isn’t Quite What You Thought It Was

The majority of the people of the United States operate every day believing that they are the “We the People” as was used in the United States Constitution. The U.S. is a corporation. The Corporation drafted a constitution. Throughout our lives, we are taught that the Constitution was written for us and thus must be followed to the letter…for us. Sorry!

In essence, we are allowed to participate in the activities of the Corporation as it may benefit the Corporation. What is difficult to follow and understand is that there must be some sort of control over the masses in order for the Corporation to pull this off. Part of that control involves leading the masses to believe they are fully protected by the Constitution of the Corporation unless otherwise authorized by the Corporation.

As part of a “united” corporation, the “several” states signed on as co-conspirators to the United States Corporation. This is why many states copied the major Corporation’s Constitution.

If you’ve followed this concept in its brevity, it might be easier to understand that the processes used to control the masses, i.e. not inciting them to anger with too much revelation of the truth of their existence as subject-slaves to the Corporation, aren’t what we might think they are.

The forces at work within the corporations much work to accomplish their goals, for their purposes and not necessarily for yours and mine. Some might ask why these forces don’t simply make us do what they say? The answer is you might balk at that notion and resist. Somewhat resembling the slow-boiling frog analogy, a little taken away here and a little there and the Corporations get what they want, and the subject-slaves still think they are “We the People.” (Insert a big WINK-WINK here)

An example of what I am trying to describe here can be found in Maine. It seems that the majority party of the Maine House (it doesn’t really matter which party) blocked a common process of sending a proposed bill to a committee which would also involve a public hearing.

This is not the first time this action has taken place but it is not a common practice. As I understand the Maine Constitution, it is not required that a bill is sent to committee for debate and public hearing. It appears that when the public hearing process is bypassed, it involves controversial bills, as does the bill in question. (It is funded by George Soros)

For this discussion, it is not about the content of the bill. It’s about the “democratic” process or better yet, that process we think the Constitution guarantees us. When “We the People” want what they want, “we the people” get short-changed. It’s all part of the rigged system.

What makes this rigged system work are the useful idiots who believe in a man-created corrupt government system that they think was created for them. Even in their anger at recognizing that information in proposed new laws can easily be hidden from us citizen-slaves and be thought of as “unconstitutional,” we, in our insanity, continue to think that if we just work within the rigged system we can change the rigged system.

Many believe their power lies in the voting process. “We need to vote these people out and vote in new blood,” we are repeatedly told. That would be fine except the only choices you get to vote for come from the Party and not the people. Or the People and not the people. It’s a farce and we fall for it.

I guess the only good thing that comes out of this process is that it can slow down the total process of bringing about complete national socialism and/or communist rule.

AND YOU DON’T WANT TO EVEN DISCUSS THE REALITIES OR THE POSSIBILITIES which is why I often end my pieces designed for generating thought with:

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

When Totalitarians Steal Your Presumed Land Rights

Perhaps the first mistake of mind is a false understanding that you, as an individual, are part of “We the People” as found in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution was constructed for “We the People”; that is owners or shareholders of the corporation called the United States and from that point passed on down to their posterity as is mentioned in that constitution. Individual states signed on to the corporation and became legal participants. Each time you sign your name to any legal document of the state, you are agreeing and willing to abide by the terms of that corporation. In short, you only have rights as are meted out by the corporation, including land ownership. The corporation permits you to carry out other functions as a benefit to them, not to you.

A tough pill to swallow.

Because from birth we are brainwashed to think we live in a free “democratic” country, where “We the People” are “you the people” you think you have power over others simply by finding more voters to go against their “freedoms.” Believing that a democratic rule is somehow American (being defined as the majority so desires) and serving as the useful idiots for the posterity of “We the People” corporate rulers, our mostly false understanding of democracy has quickly morphed into a totalitarian rule accomplished by years of mind manipulation. In layman’s terms – tying the noose that will ultimately hang you.

We live in a society that seems empowered to force the idealism of enough people onto others regardless of any perceived rights. What makes totalitarianism successful is the ability of the centralized system of government and their controllers to indoctrinate the masses into certain beliefs and attitudes. Once a dictatorial, centralized government has molded the minds of non-thinking people, those people are used to do the bidding for the government in power. It works marvelously!

We can see all this in action wherever we go if we understand the reality and look for it. Few do or care.

Yesterday I was reading an article, several actually, about how the Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) is considering modifying their controls and regulations that could allow for greater development of lands that fall under the government control of the LUPC, i.e. “unorganized townships.”

Useful idiots for a centralized government, ignorant totalitarians, one day decided what their ideal desires were for someone else’s private land. Yeah, that’s right. You see, nobody owns land. We may hold a “tenants in common” deed, that grants us the privilege to pay tribute to the governments in control, under their very strict regulations, but when push comes to shove we are helpless. There may come a time when the government decides they have need of your land and so take it with little recourse to you.

To help accomplish the wishes of centralized government, “education” programs are established that are designed to tell us what it is we want. So-called “change agents” of centralized government go out into the community and using powerful tactics designed from a firm understanding of man’s nature and ease of mind manipulation, convince other people of what society should be like and all aspects that make up our surroundings. With a majority support of the useful idiots, most anything can be accomplished while causing people to believe it is democracy in action.

One of those bits of idealism involves a “vision” of what communities and private land should be. And thus was born the Land Use Planning Commission, or whatever the name of your state’s dictatorial land use organization is called, in order that land use falls within the ideological bounds of brainwashed citizens.

I never hear anyone ask why there is such a commission…never. It also seems that the only time private citizens have much to say about the fascist form of dictatorial rule is when that rule directly effects them – if they can even recognize it. Aside from that, it is always the brainwashed, ignorant totalitarians who demand that you conform to the strict regulations of the LUPC in order that you can have your ideal, protected, isolated fantasy that someone else is paying for.

Ignorant totalitarians care not whether a person or a corporation has invested heavily in any property for purposes of providing a product to consumers, and yes, for profit, they have been convinced that it is imperative that all that land be locked up in order to fit their idealism.

This is totalitarianism at its best, carried out and perpetuated by non-thinkers who believe their democracy provides them the power to steal away the rights and lifestyle of all others.

I was reading another piece of work called, “Forging a Common Vision for Maine’s North Woods.” Think about that title for a moment. Why is it so important to these robotic destroyers of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that they forge a “common vision” (communism) of what doesn’t even belong to them? Who do we think we are? What have we become?

Hidden within the disguise of protection, while never hinting at the perpetuation of one’s idealist social agenda, we can read about the effort of “forging a common vision.”

Efforts to protect the working landscapes and rural communities of northern Maine could benefit from a broader, more comprehensive view of the region and its challenges. Indeed, forest fragmentation, parcelization, sprawl, and rural economic development all transcend municipal and county jurisdictions, and suggest the need for a regional or landscape-level approach (Foster 2001). This approach should identify and strengthen the region’s ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political assets, and place these within the larger context of Maine, New England, the Maritime Provinces, and beyond.

Who says? Millions and millions of dollars of somebody’s money have been invested in millions of acres of land in Maine and these totalitarians, lying and hiding behind protection, feel entitled to dictate to those landowners just exactly what they can and cannot do with their land in order that it fits into their “ecological, economic, social, cultural, and political assets” so that it nicely fits within the totalitarian landscape of the broader region. Does that mean make Maine like Massachusetts or does that mean lock up all the land in Maine so that those in Massachusetts can have Maine as their idealistic playground?

But what of the future? It appears that the ignorant totalitarians bent on their own demise by placing full control over property in the hands of a centralized, socialistic government fail to realize the loss of that important monetary tribute the joint tenant is permitted to cede to government. That money serves to further carry out and perpetuate the power and control of the centralized government and yet once the landowners decide their tribute far exceeds the benefits they could realize from their investment, they will give up that land and into whose hands and control will in then fall? Will it become the full control of the corporate United States or the corporate state’s where the land is located? Perhaps it will be turned over to non-tax-paying land trusts or the like, always eager to do the bidding of central government.

Totalitarians want what they want. Do they really know what they are doing? I don’t think so, but the idealism behind the push is overwhelming to them.

There once was a day when land ownership was the creme del a creme. Today, with so little left that a person can do with land, is it any longer worth the investment?

Then what?

Share

The Number 18 and the Number 21

I often get emails ridiculing Liberalism and in most cases, the ridicule is justified. But how much of what we do and what we get done is actually the result of unclear thinking from liberals and how much is the product of Leftism or for that matter the Deep State?

For decades, perhaps centuries, 18 years of age seemed to be the benchmark for when the Deep State feels they can get away with sending our children off to fight their wars, many of which come home in a box.

18 years of age is also the magic benchmark that allows those the privilege to vote for those puppets in Washington who will decide that at 18 you are old enough to die for their cause, hidden behind the guise of “freedom isn’t free” or some other such apothegm.

At age 18 you can don a uniform, carry weapons, and kill people so that Americans can be “free.” Nobody questions the absurdity of this. At age 18 you can cast a ballot for the next fascist dictator puppet so Americans can be “free.” Nobody questions this absurdity.

At any age, you can stage a revolt in Washington and dictate to criminals in Congress who can own a gun and what kind they can own, how much ammunition you can possess and what your gun might look like. But unless you are 21 you can’t own one of those guns.

Are you so embroiled in “for the love of country” and your government that you are incapable of seeing that this fascist regime and useless eaters that do their bidding for them, insist that once you turn 18 you can go get yourself blown up in a war created by the politicians, but you are incapable of owning a gun in this “free” country many died for in the name of “freedom isn’t free?”

Absolute HORSESHIT!!!

Share

Sin Is The Cause of All Violence, Including in Schools

In the staged events of a Parkland, Florida school shooting and all subsequent and related events, such as protests, demonstration, actions by government, etc., the majority of the discussion has centered around guns. As a brainwashed (I know people don’t want to hear that word) society, we automatically equate guns with violence. It is understandable and easier to associate an inanimate object – a gun – with violence than laying the blame where the blame belongs – the man.

Even those who seem to want to defend their right to keep and bear arms, spend countless hours presenting data and history in hopes of convincing people that guns aren’t the problem.

I was reading this morning another in a long list of school safety proposals and how $20 million will help to make Maine schools safer. Will it?

Completely void of any discussion about the problem with violence is the direction our society has gone. Oh, it’s easier to mouth a few words about how “things have changed” etc., but never any real in-depth talks into the specifics of what and why.

I recently brought into a related conversation about gun violence video games and this country’s music culture of filthy, disgusting lyrics and glamorizing of violence, including gun violence, and just like the movies, they were defended by the other in the conversation as irrelevant to the problem of gun violence and in particular school shootings as though mentally ill people can differentiate between fantasy and reality. How then can there ever be any serious productive actions taken to address the problem of school safety or violence in general?

I have read countless writings about gun history, school history, violence, perversion, violence, anger, violence, hatred…and did I mention violence. I have yet to read any discussion on the history of man and why that violence exists.

If you are an atheist or an evolutionist, don’t bother to read any further.

Adam and Eve had two sons – Cain and Abel. By man’s biological understanding, we can say that Cain and Abel were twins. An examination of the Scriptures hints to us that Cain was a product of Evil and Abel a product of Good.

Cain killed his brother Abel. This act of violence, enmeshed with several emotional, nonsensical feelings, were all the result of his parent’s sin. From the very moment that Yahweh’s creations of Adam and Eve chose to carry out a sinful act against the wishes of their Creator, violence has been a part of the social structure of all societies since.

Knowing this fact, are we to somehow devise that man is capable of stopping violence simply by taking away a tool used to perpetuate that violence?

Willingness to accept this premise doesn’t mean that as a society we should not make rational attempts at mitigating violence, including making changes to all influencers of violence, anger, and hatred. But, we cannot cherry-pick only those items that we are most comfortable with.

Because violence will never go away in this existence, it is the reason Man was forced to devise ways of being able to protect themselves from those that are going to commit violent acts regardless of what the majority of society decides otherwise. Protection from violence is a common occurrence in this country. If you want examples, look to our politician criminals in Washington attempting to tell us what limitations we must have to protect ourselves, while they have as much of any kind of protection that they want. Why is that? Are they somehow more deserving of life than you or I? Hint: They think so.

Cars kill more people than guns. Automobiles are regularly used as a weapon to mow people down in a crowd to carry out the anger and hatred of a violently programmed mentally ill person. People drink and drive killing many people every year. Speed kills. Distracted driving kills. There’s never been a call to ban cars. Instead, cars were made safer to protect the driver and passengers. Laws were made to limit speeds one can safely travel, but those laws do absolutely nothing to stop those with a bent to drive fast which endangers the lives of other sharing the highway. Laws were created to stop cell phone texting while driving. In case you hadn’t noticed it has done NOTHING to stop the distracted drives killing people every day.

Many things can be used as a dangerous weapon. Sin means there will always be some that will use those weapons to carry out their sinister acts. Making laws that remove an innocent person’s ability to protect themselves from the sinful, violent acts that will always take place, makes absolutely no sense at all. This is the reasoning of a mad person.

Because of the sin in the Garden of Eden, men will do sinful things – even to craft laws that are useless and oppressive because sin has blinded them from rational thought and reasoning.

Since the beginning of time sin has resulted in acts of violent behavior. Since the beginning of time men have devised ways to protect themselves from such terrible behavior. Sin is in control when men think they have the power to stop acts of violence by devising laws that result in the opposite outcome.

Sin is the base foundation of the madness this society is embroiled in. Blindness is sin. Blindness prevents seeing Truth.

 

Share