May 25, 2019

Infringe Did and Still Does Mean “INFRINGE”

Everyday is the season to infringe upon the Second Amendment. It never ceases and newly-elected politicians love to jump on the totalitarian gunboats, armed for bear, gunning (no real pun intended) for any chance they might get to further infringe (destroy) the Second Amendment. The current political season is no different than others.

The far Left’s staging of events to instill fear, hatred, and anger in the masses have set the stage they hope will carry them over the threshold (that threshold being private gun ownership) that will win them a victory that will end in defeat for all…just you wait and see. But will we even be able to recognize such defeat?

Back in January of 2016 I wrote an article about how Americans consider the Second Amendment to be essentially the only right, inalienable or constitutional depending on how you choose to view it, that is worthy of complete and unrestricted infringement. They don’t necessarily see all the other “rights” in the same way. Surely destruction of those rights is just as potentially dangerous as keeping and bearing arms – if only honesty could admit that.

Of course the original words of the Second Amendment state that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

It has always been argued, never with much conviction or honesty, that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment they didn’t mean that citizens, i.e. the people (small “p”), had a right to arm themselves and/or to keep arms in their possession.

An honest assessment of the intent of the the Second Amendment has been made clear through endless examination of historic documents. To support the historic significance of the right of the people (small “p”) to keep and bear arms, the U.S. Supreme Court, in it’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, in 2008, declared that the Second Amendment did guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to the people (small “p”).

Of course the downside to the Heller decision is that the majority opinion, given by the late (probably murdered) Justice Antonin Scalia, said nothing about “reasonable restrictions” or infringements to the Second Amendment. And so, even though the Supreme Court ruled that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, there has never been any ruling to determine if any “infringements” can be levied on this right, even though the Second Amendment clearly is written that the right shall NEVER be infringed. What is it here that we are not getting? Therefore, the infringement battle train continues to roll and, no doubt, will never end.

In part of the honest examination of the historic facts that drove the Second Amendment creation, I am going to look at and share with readers the etymology (origins) of two words found in the Second Amendment – “arms” and “infringed.”

Let’s start with “arms.” According to Etymonline.com, since around 1300 a.d. the root word for “arms” meant weapon. This root definition has never really changed. In examining the etymology of many words, over the span of history, the meanings of words change, and sometimes drastically. In this case arms still mean weapons…period.

Argument might be made in this research that the use of the word “arms” may have referred to “military” weapons. I realize that in some cases those who have chosen to use the history of words in their defense of the claim that the Second Amendment applied to “militias” and not the general public, too much history exists that proves the intent of the Founders was to give the people (small “p”) the right to keep and bear arms.

If one is willing to accept that historic research as a true fact, then further argument could be made that the Second Amendment should not restrict that right by prohibiting “military” weapons from those which can be kept and bared.

Regardless, there is no mistaking that when the Founding Fathers used the word “arms” it clearly meant weapons, arms, military tools. They understood the importance of a means to deter a tyrannical government. I wonder if they envisioned a tyrannical people (small “p”)?

The second word to examine is “infringed.” Like the word “arms”, since its creation, infringe has always meant what we today consider the meaning of infringe to be.

Once again, if we look at Etymonline.com, we see that since the 15th century, use of the root word meaning infringe, i.e. “enfrangen,” to violate, or from Latin, “infringere,” damage, break, has never changed in any real meaningful way

When the Founding Fathers selected the two words, “arms” and “infringe,” wasn’t it exactly clear that they were talking about “weapons” and the popular definition of infringe to mean that this right shall NEVER BE violated, damaged, or broken?

Why then do we brainwashed Americans insist on infringing upon this right? Even those claiming to hold dear the Constitution, often claiming how all others tread on it and ignore it, and yet these same mindless folks work tirelessly day in and day out to destroy the Second Amendment, some thinking they are saving it by infringing upon it?

Regardless of what can be presented as evidence, I hold out no hope that the people (small “p”) will ever understand that they are working toward their own destruction.

Oh, what have we done, and what are we doing?

Share

Insanity Is Illogical

Yesterday I received an email that contained a bunch of stuff intended to show the reader how illogical certain modes of thinking, or lack thereof, make little sense and actually brings to light the insanity on display in this country today. I thought instead of just copying and pasting what I received, I would enhance the discussion a bit in hopes that instead of asking whether certain beliefs are logical or contain any common sense, a reader might realize the insanity of it all. Here goes.

I have no idea if any statistics presented in this email are true or false nor do I intend to waste my time trying to figure it out. This is about insanity not about man’s truths.

The email began by stating that 11 teenagers die everyday as the result of texting while driving, suggesting that gun control freaks who have sought to have the age of gun ownership raised to 21, should consider the same for cellphone ownership. There is a difference, evidently between a willingness to die or cause someone else to die so long as that choice is theirs. Odd that people can’t see that all people want a choice, not to be dictated to. Insane.

The email also suggested that if “gun control” actually worked, then Chicago would resemble the mythological TV show The Andy Griffith Show located in the fake town of Mayberry. We know this comparison is just too far out. Mayberry RFD has but a few thousand people, those raised to be respectful and care about all other people, careful not to impose on others and trample their rights. Chicago has a few million people, the bulk of which couldn’t give two rat’s behinds about you or anything about you. And we haven’t even talked about guns. Ridding Chicago of guns will not change Chicago. It’s the people stupid!

The Third Scenario presented is as follows: The Second Amendment makes more women equal than the entire feminist movement. As it is written, I guess I’m just too stupid to understand what it means. On to the next.

Fourth, there are more than 300 million legal gun owners in the US and a trillion rounds of ammo. Remember, I don’t know if this is true. I would guess it’s not. I’m quite sure there are more guns than this and along with it more ammo. The email suggests that if legal gun ownership was THE problem, we wouldn’t have any trouble knowing about it.

This is quite misleading but I guess we are supposed to overlook that and not miss the point. You see, most legal gun owners are of the character that they mind their own business and seldom turn to violence in order to force their choice of lifestyle onto others. (hanging by a thread)

Five, nobody blamed the gun (rifle) when JFK was assassinated in Texas in 1963. They didn’t? Perhaps the question might want to be asked if it was a rifle that killed him. Again, we shouldn’t miss the point. The real point here is that in 1963 the people of this nation were not yet ready to be mass brainwashed into being fearful of honest people having guns. The mass media, as the echo chamber for the Global Power Structure, have done a masterful job of creating an insane attitude about guns. Had this programed event been in place in 1963 you can bet your bottom dollars insane people would have blamed the gun. Had that worked, I’m sure Ronald Reagan would have been attacked with a wet noodle instead of a “automatic revolver” as the press so intelligently told the people at that time.

Here’s a good one. According to whoever devised this email, the NRA murders nobody each year and receives no federal money to not do that. Planned Parenthood murders 350,000 unborn babies using a half a billion dollars of yours and my tax dollars.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say the NRA kills nobody. I read some of the crap they say and do and it’s killing me. Too bad there weren’t more people who felt the way I do about the NRA and the government-controlled instigators that they are – disguised of course as fighters for your Second Amendment rights. I might add, BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

The email says it has no problem with background checks when it comes to being able to own a firearm. They insist that the same should be required for immigrants and voting. That’s where they are all wrong. The Second Amendment does not state the right to keep and bear arms is contingient upon passing a background check, neither was it stipulated that immigrants needed a background check (provided that went through the legal process of immigration), nor did you need one in order to vote.

We can thank all the moron, fake “right-to-bear-arms” promoters for ushering us further into tyrannical rule and the destruction of inalienable rights who promote those deceitful “reasonable” limitations on rights. Refer to Scenario Number Four above. Where once the country consisted of millions of people of good character who would never dream of pleading for laws to limit the freedoms of all. That character that I wrote of above is dwindling away as fast as cellphones are destroying our very existence.

In number eight, it begins to get a bit contrived. They say for those people who claim we don’t need smoke-detectors in our homes; that’s what fire departments are for, they say that’s how they feel when someone tells them they don’t need a gun. Don’t miss the point…if there really is one. I can still choose (at least where I live) to have a smoke detector or not. I’ve pretty much lost the choice to own and use a firearm the way I want to. Again we need to refer to Scenario Number Four. The disintegration of any moral character paves the way for insanity and the forcing of idealistic beliefs and perverse lifestyles onto all others.

The email ends with the most idiotic comparison imaginable…that is if you are an honest and intelligent person. I’ll copy it here just as it came to me in the email: “Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that’s going to end?”

To accept this comparison, one has to believe that only gun owners are sane and will line up on one side of a civil war, and anyone without a gun is insane and will man the other side. I’m not even sure there is a point to be made here other than the author ain’t too bright.

There’s just a whole bunch of confusion displaying itself as insanity. We have become insane because we have taken our eyes off our CREATOR OF ALL THINGS! Man has no answers. Man, and his filthy flesh is the problem. If there need be legitimate talk of civil wars, then try to understand the real reason there would be one. It isn’t about gun rights or abortion rights. It’s about your relationship with your CREATOR.

Share

“Christianity” Standing in the Way of Totalitarian Rule

Really? Maybe or maybe not. 

First, let’s look at Google’s definition of Totalitarianism: “a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.”

CBN News is reporting that China’s communist government and leadership are claiming that Christianity is standing in the way of their desired totalitarian rule.

To exam this more closely and honestly we must understand totalitarianism and what or who is Christianity along with the context in which this article is written.

China is most commonly referred to as a communist country. However, leaders before the onslaught of the existing government began reforms that allowed China to participate in at least a quasi-capitalist country of making, selling and importing and exporting goods. We can’t lose sight of the fact that China’s quest toward totalitarianism is nothing more than a modified form of communism that has been rapidly approaching that of the United States.

Some would protest the idea that the United States is a nation of totalitarianism promoted by eager, albeit perhaps unknowingly, totalitarians. How so?

If we look at the definition of totalitarianism above, it says that it is a “system of government that is centralized and dictatorial.” To deny the system of American government as anything but centralized is to live a blind existence. What really throws off most people is the idea that America’s system of government cannot be totalitarian because it is run as a two-party system, not of a lone dictator.

It would take pages of information to explain that the two-party system is fake – it’s a false paradigm, ignorantly and blindly played by eager totalitarians wishing “their” party of choice was always in power. The reality is that it always is in power because the idea of a differing two-party political system is all for show. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans run and control this country. It is done by a more centralized dictatorial power structure few are interested in learning anything about. After all, the concept is frightening. Something most never want to deal with.

The definition also states that in order for totalitarianism to function it must have complete subservience to the state. Practicing totalitarians in this country eagerly promote, as subservient slaves, the party rule. In their own ignorance, they know not what they are doing. They want to work to create laws that steal away their rights and independence believing changes in this existence is for the better good, failing to learn and understand history involving the implementation of terrible and oppressive government systems.

The article in reference states that China’s leadership declares that “Christianity” is prohibiting their road to complete totalitarian rule. But what is “Christianity” in the context used? 

Often the term Christianity is used as a general term that describes anything that isn’t Muslim, Buddhist, or any other “faith” group that appears to stand in China’s way.

Without getting into a debate about the differences between so-called Christianity and those who are genuinely Spirit-filled, born-again followers of Yahweh/Yeshua, let’s just say that the article doesn’t offer any real specificity when it comes to who, precisely, are the Christians being persecuted.

However, because the totalitarian rule requires complete servitude to the dictatorial ruler/centralized government, any group with any sense of power that teaches anything that might contradict the totalitarian rule of law, has to be cleansed from the government system. This would take a far longer period of time to get washed out of the American form of government as it would one that only a short time ago was communistic.

Changes taking place in the United States, are geared toward the destruction of independent thought and the outlawing of government opposition through censorship and/or other methods of ridding such existences. We currently see this ridding of a nation of alternative thought and political idealism as we see followers of both sides of the fake two-party system wanting to outlaw all ideology that runs counter to their party culture and ideology.  The American system of government desires the complete subservience to the false paradigm of their government. They get this in a bit of an odd way by convincing the masses that differences of political power and authority exist in two distinct political idealisms when in fact they are really one and the same.

As this government system works toward ridding society of any and all groups and individuals opposing dictatorial rule and the loss of all rights, the closer they are getting to that One World Rule where control over the people can exist without any real opposition.

The lies continue while ignorant deniers of reality allow for the perpetuity of the false paradigm of two parties. We see it today in news headlines, whether or not those headlines are real, fake, or something in between.

Trump built his campaign in his run to be president of the United States by bringing millions on board to build that infamous wall between the U.S. and Mexico. And how has that progressed?

Today, we learn that any notion of funding for such a wall is nonexistent. If I had said to you three or more years ago that there would never be a wall erected between the U.S. and Mexico, I would have been scoffed because Trump True Believers knew better. His party wanted the wall. The “other” party claimed they didn’t want it, even though the party leader, Bill Clinton, had convinced everyone it was a necessity to have a wall. 

We also discover today that Donald Trump, the lying faker of Second Amendment rights, who used this lie to bring millions of voters to his side, even though in the past he was a strong supporter of Bill Clinton’s Assault Weapons Ban, is making his move to make sure the so-called “bump-stock” design of weapons is made unlawful.

Might I also remind readers of the fake Republican Trump, a member of the real universal political party headed by other Global Power Structure members, suggested that it was a good thing to arrest people and lock them up and then sort out the laws and constitutional application to any such arrests? Do you still want to deny the existence of American totalitarianism?

Political parties are a sham, a distraction, a shell game but an effective tool successfully used to bring this nation in line with totalitarianism, whose only deterrent is the few who are not quite yet willing to be in complete servitude to the dictatorial rule being manufactured. It will come.

Perhaps some forms of Christianity, those that teach independence, follow Yahweh’s commandments, and walk under the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, stand in the way of China’s and the United States’ striving toward totalitarian rule, but as I see it, it is anyone or group of people who in any way suggest opposition to this act. You don’t have to be a “Christian” to be standing in any government’s way that might affect their progress to a desired system of government.

The only way complete subservience to a state and/or a leader can exist is when a person’s will and desire to be independent is taken from them. I can tell you that a true Christian, walking in Yehweh’s Light stands in the way of a better form of centralized government and dictatorial rule.

Share

Gun Ownership: A Right? Maybe – Granted Privilege? Limited

I do tire of the so-called “Constitutional Experts” who think they know the Constitution. And yes, here goes another attempt at the same. You can turn me off if you want to.

The NRA posted a rebuttal to an anti-handgun rant by a University of Maine professor (electrical engineer – makes sense to me) attempting to prove the professor is misguided and not up to grade with his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Most readers have an understanding of where I stand when it comes to one’s RIGHT to self-protection and the choice I should have as to how I wish to do that. So, I’ll spare you any rebuttals to the arguments between the professor and the NRA as to who has a right or what that right might be concerning gun ownership. I will, however, raise some questions, some of which readers will think perhaps I’ve stepped off the deep end and maybe I have.

The NRA claims, as most “experts” and misguided citizen/slaves, that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written for us common folks – “we the people” and not “We the People.” Think again. However, I don’t much care for government’s lies and B.S. when it comes to their mere existence. They can all go to hell as far as I care. I claim my right to protection as granted to me by my Creator and that decision and the actions I choose are between me and Him. I must, therefore, (study to show myself approved unto God) decipher when to “render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar and when Ceasar becomes contrary to God’s Word – again my choice established between me and Yahweh.

The Second Amendment is not a right – certainly not an inalienable right. If having the “right to bear arms” was an inalienable right, as we have wrongfully been taught, such a right would never be questioned or changed. The Second Amendment is constantly questioned and always being changed. When you consider the Constitution, it tells us that in order to amend any part thereof there is a process supposedly made necessary to accomplish that. That process has NEVER been undertaken. Congress, with the prompting by activists (a condition that exists to garner votes and money) merely passes new laws that completely alter the guts of the Second Amendment, or any other right or law.

But then we, the citizen/serf/slave, in our misguided educations (indoctrinations) think that the actions of Congress to rewrite the Bill of Rights or vary from what they consider the contents of that constitution, is “unconstitutional.” There is no such thing! Get over it!

How often these days do we hear people invoking their knowledge of the Constitution by making statements claiming some new law is unconstitutional? Endless! Such claims always appear from anyone who doesn’t like a new law or an amendment to an existing law, i.e. Amendment Ten, Second Amendment, etc. And through all of the cherry picking of what fits the agenda in question (all sides do this), they forget the “Necessary and Proper” clause of the Constitution – Article I Section 8. (written for the rulers, not for you and me)

Missing from this brainwashed existence is the understanding of what becomes law. Most think when Congress passes a new law, that is the law…period. Not so.

Court rulings often amend, obscure, muddle, and outright change what we believed to be law. It’s their “duty” to “interpret” the laws – wink-wink. The “winning” side and the “losing” side each get to write an opinion. Those opinions become part of the long list of precedences set that, unless questioned and challenged in a rigged courtroom, become quasi-law used for whatever purposes anyone so chooses. (Never trust a lawyer, right?)

Policy is also an unknown factor in crafting laws. Why do you think presidents, now and in the past, spend so much time writing and publishing their “policy” statements? Presidential Policy becomes law and is used in crafting all new laws designed to oppress the citizen/serf/slave.

The right to keep and bear arms never has been a clear-cut case of an unquestioned right. While it might do some good to fight for what you perceive as an “unquestioned” right to own a gun for whatever reason you so choose, the government operates as a rigged system. They control what you and I can and can’t do. Our “rights” suddenly become privileges because that rigged system can and does yank those privileges from us.

While the battle over the Second Amendment continues, it is only stalling the inevitable. The day will come, and it WILL come, when our fascist Congress will, once again, exercise their authority through THEIR constitution, to pass all laws necessary and proper to do whatever they want to you and me. We lose, they win!

Participating in this man-created criminal enterprise called government, places us in willing participation as a citizen/slave…and evidently, we like it.

The NRA and the professor and many more who will come after them are doing what they have been taught to do. It’s a shame in many ways. So long as things that exist the way they do is of benefit to the corrupt criminals in Washington, you will think you are protecting your rights. You are not! You are doing the bidding for them greedy, crooked, lying bastards! One day you will wake up (hopefully) and ask, what the hell happened?

 

Share

A Tale of Two Cities

 
         CHICAGO, IL   HOUSTON, TX
Population 2.7 million   2.15 million
       
Median HH Income $38,600   $37,000
       
% African-American 38.9%   24%
       
% Hispanic 29.9%   44%
       
% Asian 5.5%   6%
       
% Non-Hispanic White 28.7%   26%
       

Pretty similar until you compare the following:

  Chicago, IL               Houston, TX  
         
Concealed Carry   Legal? No   Yes  
         
Number of Gun Stores None   184 Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 – legal places to buy guns–Wal-Mart, K-mart, sporting goods, etc.  
         
Homicides, 2012 1,806   207  
         
Homicides per 100K 38.4   9.6  
         
Avg. January high temperature  (F) 31   63  
         

Conclusion :  Cold weather causes murders. This is due to climate change.

Share

Gun Protest: Who Said Totalitarians Had to Be Intelligent?

Protesters targeted the Kittery Trading Post in Kittery, Maine over the weekend seeking to get the store to stop selling “assault rifles” (whatever those are) and to limit the age of those wishing to purchase a rifle. As gutless totalitarians, many of the protesters don’t know which end of a rifle a bullet goes in and comes out but that didn’t stop them from displaying not only their ignorance of guns but of the Second Amendment – another example of people eager and willing to destroy all their remaining government-appropriated rights.

According to Maine Public, one protester said the Second Amendment was intended to protect muskets – uh huh! And another said, “I think if everyone wants to be entitled to a musket — fine.”

That’s about as brilliant as Susan Collins stating that Roe v. Wade was settled law but by her actions tells us the Second Amendment is not. BRILLIANT!!

If we were to use the same misguided totalitarian logic then: Everyone is “entitled” to say whatever they want so long as it is only those restricted words I want them to speak; How about everyone is limited to owning just a Toyota Prius – after all, you don’t NEED a bigger, better, car with more features, etc.; And we are protected from illegal searches and seizures unless the government decides otherwise or a group of protesters demand something else. This nonsense can go on forever but it is impossible to reason with misguided nuts who refuse to understand the truth about guns – or the truth about rights for that matter.

Recently we learned from a new study that in countries where guns are common, the rate of violent crime goes down and that guns are NOT the cause of violence – a lost society is. So then, why are we not protesting in support of a change in our society? Why are we not protesting to stop the violent music and video games? Why do we promote decadence in our society, dragging members of this culture into a cesspool of immoral behavior, lying, cheating, stealing, anger, hatred, etc.?

The answer is easy. These protesters have been brainwashed, propagandized, and made void of common sense reasoning (by design) and they actually believe what they are doing and saying regardless of truth. And if you talk with them, they will angrily tell you they hold the real truth – everything else is a lie.

A bit of A Clockwork Orange going on.

 

Share

When Man-gODS Determine Risk Protection

Florida is one of the fascist states of America who passed a law that allows law enforcement and the courts to determine when someone might be a risk to themselves and others. As part of that law, central government’s police (police state) for no reason other than someone made a determination will enter your home or violate your person and confiscate your gun(s).

According to Guns America, Pinellas County in western Florida has assembled a 5-man confiscation team at the Sheriff’s Office.

What could possibly go wrong?

But they and nearly every American alive today have it ALL wrong. The Pinellas County Sheriff is quoted as saying, “It’s a constitutional right to bear arms and when you are asking the court to deprive somebody of that right we need to make sure we are making good decisions, right decisions and the circumstances warrant it.”

Not very reassuring…unless you are a fascist or a totalitarian in which case you are eager to give up all your freedoms in order to further empower the central government, which, by the way, doesn’t give one iota about your freedoms or rights.

This is insanity!

In case you have forgotten…and most have…the Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There is nothing in there about risk protection orders and other “reasonable” amendments to a God-given right to self-protection. This government and the people in it are so perverted in all sense of common sense and decency have it all backward. When it comes to murdering babies, the law is “settled.” When it comes to a right, unquestionably defined within the Constitution, the law is unsettled and ever-changing to meet the growing power grabbing of a fascist government (Fascism ALWAYS precedes communism.)

But don’t misunderstand. This Risk Protection Order doesn’t just target the Second Amendment. Florida already has attacked so-called free speech – something America abandoned several years ago and nobody has caught on yet.

So, if a sheriff and/or a judge somewhere doesn’t like what you said and thinks that statement is putting SOMEONE or SOMETHING “at risk” then all rights are abandon and any guns will be confiscated…by brute force evidently. Bring in the Confiscation Team and let’s kick some ass!

One attorney is so ignorant of a person’s right to self-protection that in her defense of a client labeled “at risk” because a judge didn’t like what they said, believes the law needs to rewritten so that it only targets gun owners. Who needs enemies when you have stupid lawyers?

There is no hope!

The Pinellas County Sheriff says “he understands the constitutional rights that are at stake here.” NO HE DOESN’T!! He understands nothing. All he understands is that as head of a law enforcement organization that exists within a police state, he is eager to have more and more power to knock the people down and tread on them.

These risk protection orders are nothing but smoke and mirrors because this perverted, immoral society does not want to address the reasons why sick people desire to go out and kill other people.

There is no hope!

And we can also thank the many faux Second Amendment groups who have pushed for this fascist rule. May they have the new laws shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.

Share

Second Amendment Quote Worth Sharing

In regard to Maine’s Senator Susan Collins, described as “a socialist wrapped in a Marxist inside a fascist,” who refuses to vote to approve any Supreme Court nominee who might disapprove of Roe v. Wade, the following comment:

“This fool actually believes that Roe is settled law but, the Second Amendment is not.”

Share

Dick’s Sporting Goods Doubles-Down on Reduced Gun Sales

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

CEO Admits Alienating Customers, Says It’s “Fine”
Shareholder No Longer Shops There

Pittsburgh, PA / Washington, DC – Dick’s Sporting Goods reaffirmed its decision to end certain firearms-related sales during today’s annual meeting of its shareholders. A shareholder activist challenged corporate leadership about putting anti-gun advocacy ahead of the needs of its customers and its investors. After the meeting was over, Dick’s CEO Ed Stack said it was “fine” if the shareholder never shopped in his stores again.

The National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) – the nation’s leading proponent of free-market investor activism – confronted Stack and other company leaders about the company’s recent decisions to stop selling AR-15 rifles and certain accessories as well as to raise the age limit for gun purchases from 18 to 21 years old. These changes were made after the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida. The company also reportedly hired lobbyists to promote gun restrictions. 

“The management of Dick’s Sporting Goods shot itself in the foot by catering to the fanaticism of the gun-grabbers,” said National Center Vice President David W. Almasi, who represented FEP at today’s shareholder meeting in Pittsburgh. “Stack seems to believe that most customers support the company’s politicized retail strategy, but he has also acknowledged that these decisions could harm shareholders’ return on investment. This is irrational and irresponsible, and I don’t consider it a sustainable strategy.”

Noting that the company puts itself at risk with its high-profile stance on guns, Almasi said:

Mr. Stack, you knew the risk of these political moves from the start. During your March 13 earnings call, you admitted: “There are just going to be some people who just don’t shop us anymore for anything.”…

Sales are so anemic and relations with gun manufacturers such as Mossberg so poor right now that you’ve even indicated Dick’s might get out the gun business entirely. Meanwhile, Sportsman’s Warehouse reports that their gun sales and net sales were up 15% during the first quarter. That company credits consumer backlash against companies such as Dick’s as partially responsible for its success.

The company is willfully giving up money. It has damaged its reputation by lending its voice and its resources to those who want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, even while the vast majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment. Thirty percent of American adults own guns, and another 11 percent live with someone who does. You’ve now alienated them…

Stack admitted Dick’s change in gun-related sales “did alienate some gunowners,” but insisted that “we’re not going to change” the policy and that “we as a company and a board stand by our decision.” Almasi then warned Stack that Dick’s new policy could mean “the hunters won’t be back. The supporters of the Second Amendment… won’t be back.”

The full text of Almasi’s statement and question, as prepared for delivery is available here. Audio clips are also available of Almasi’s question and Stack’s answer.

After the close of the meeting, Almasi approached Stack to discuss the issue further. Stack terminated the conversation when Almasi questioned Stack’s assertion that the gun policy was about corporate concern for child safety. Almasi asked why, if the company was concerned about child safety, the stores continue to sell football gear despite the risk of head injuries and brain trauma.

On his way out of the room, Stack asked Almasi, “I suspect we won’t see you in our stores?” Almasi answered: “Probably not.” Stack replied: “Fine!”

“When Dick’s alienates gunowners and their supporters, those people won’t just stop buying their guns at Dick’s – they also won’t buy hunting equipment, coolers, jackets or golf clubs at Dick’s. They will tell their friends to shop elsewhere,” Almasi added. “It’s a poor business model to offend a group as motivated and organized as gunowners. It’s also not wise for a corporation to oppose a basic constitutional right.”

FEP has raised the issue of gun rights several times this shareholder season. It challengedBank of America CEO Brian Moynihan over the financial institution’s decision to sever ties with certain gun manufacturers. It also challenged United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz about the reputational risk of breaking off its relationship with the National Rifle Association (NRA). In addition, FEP Director Justin Danhof, Esq. recently wrote in The Federalist that “[c]orporate America has become the muscle of American liberalism,” explaining how liberals are using the business community “to bolster and justify the cause” against the NRA and gun rights.

FEP representatives have participated in 26 shareholder meetings so far in 2018.

Share

Letter to Montana Governor: What Happens With “Reasonable” Restrictions on First Amendment

From Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association:

Governor Steve Bullock
Helena, Montana
Dear Governor Bullock,
Just like you “support” the Second Amendment, we support the First Amendment, but as with you and the Second, we support the First Amendment with reasonable and commonsense restrictions.
Because of these commonsense restrictions, you are no longer allowed to speak on government property, including within 1,000 feet of schools and buildings occupied by any level of government.  That would be just too dangerous.  You are also not allowed to speak in any other public place unless you have a government permit to do so.  Such a permit will only be granted if you have satisfactorily completed an approved training course about how to comply with writing and speech restrictions – how to use your rights safely.
You are no longer allowed to use amplification to enhance your speech, as such amplification is considered to be “high capacity” or “assault speech.”  No microphones.  You are no longer allowed to use any electronic means to write, record, or transmit your speech, since those mechanisms were not yet invented when the First Amendment was ratified.  Being a smart and capable guy, we’re sure you can get by with a pen made from a turkey feather and the volume and reach of your natural voice.
Another commonsense restriction will be what you may write or talk about.  We will have a committee available to review any proposed writing or proposed speech from you, in advance.  This committee will research your past writings and speech, and the proposed writing or speech, looking for any abuse or history of abuse.  If there is any such abuse or history, the committee will not approve your writing or speech.  If you attempt to write or speak without this advanced approval, you may be prosecuted for a federal crime, bankrupted with legal costs, put in a federal prison, and lose all of your rights.  Oh, by the way, Republicans will appoint this review committee.
Oh, and there will be a ten-day waiting period after your writing or speech has been approved by the committee before you will be allowed to share the writing with others or deliver the speech.  You may have composed the writing or speech in a moment of passion, and you may reconsider your intent or language after you’ve had a few days to cool down.
You will be allowed to speak to one person at a time, in a private setting, as long as you do not disturb others and the content of your speech is approved in advance.  And, you will be allowed to write as much as you want, as long as the writing is with a quill pen, is approved in advance by the committee, is reproduced only manually, and is carried only by foot or horse power, all following the ten-day cooling down period.  We will allow so much, for now, because we fully support your First Amendment rights and because we do not wish to be unduly restrictive.
We hope you understand that these commonsense restrictions are best for everyone, for the public good.  You aren’t opposed to the public good and everyone, are you?
If these commonsense restrictions don’t solve whatever problems may be apparent or imagined, we will need to look at other possible restrictions.  We don’t really want to take away your First Amendment, but everyone demands that we solve the terrible problem of First Amendment abuse and solve it now.  Surely we must all bow to the majority of public opinion in this, don’t you agree?
Sincerely yours,
The Public
Share