May 24, 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What If The Second Amendment Was Repealed?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

Ruger’s official response (posted 5/9/2018 to their Facebook page)

Please understand that Ruger was obligated by applicable law to include a shareholder’s activist resolution with its proxy materials for a shareholder vote. With its passage, the proposal requires Ruger to prepare a report. That’s it. A report. What the proposal does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to change our business, which is lawful and constitutionally protected. What it does not do . . . and cannot do . . . is force us to adopt misguided principles created by groups who do not own guns, know nothing about our business, and frankly would rather see us out of business. As our CEO explained, “we are Americans who work together to produce rugged, reliable, innovative and affordable firearms for responsible citizens. We are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment not because we make firearms, but because we cherish the rights conferred by it. We understand the importance of those rights and, as importantly, recognize that allowing our constitutionally protected freedoms to be eroded for the sake of political expediency is the wrong approach for our Company, for our industry, for our customers, and for our country. We are arms makers for responsible citizens and I want to assure our long-term shareholders and loyal customers that we have no intention of changing that.”

Share

NRA Appoints Oliver North as its President

Seriously? So, just what is the image the NRA is trying to present themselves as? Are they making sure that everyone knows they are nothing more than a “good-ole-boy” political pawn of the U.S. Corporation?

As many of you may well know, I am not a fan of the NRA. Short one stint of membership with the NRA that lasted one-year several years ago, I have not been a member of the NRA and do not support them today. They present themselves as THE supporter and defender of the Second Amendment when in reality they work tirelessly to water down the amendment and seemingly carry out the bidding of whoever the standing administration is in Washington promoting “reasonable” restrictions on a constitutional amendment that was intended to not be allowed changes or limitations.

Now, the NRA has asked Oliver North to be their president. Many see Oliver North as their hero…I suppose because he was a Marine, wore lots of medals and bling and worked for the NSC during the Reagan years. No matter how you want to present North in your mind’s eye, he was a crook, a thief, a cheat and some would go so far as to call him a traitor. You and I would have locked up and the key thrown away.

North claimed responsibility for devising the machination of “Iran Contra” as well as the system that would illegally sell guns to the Iranians in exchange for cash that would be funneled through a “shell” organization, on to a Washington, D.C. bank that was a favorite of some in the Republican Party (wink-wink) and with connections to black organizations all over the world.

And yet, after North retired from the Marines during his investigation and trial and was found guilty of his involvement, subsequently all charges were “dismissed” – an obvious and deliberate indication that he was going to be protected by a crooked government that sent him to carry out the affair in the beginning. There are no laws that govern those that govern.

Regardless of what you may think of Oliver North, even though he was a member of the NRA Board, moving him up to become the new president of the NRA is a bold move on the part of the NRA and one that could backfire enormously and create an even bigger mess for them in the long run. For certain it will increase the divide between those who support the Second Amendment and those that blame the NRA for all gun violence.

Some will buy into the concept that North’s high profile will be a bonus, along with his perceived strength and connections, but seriously, why is it that people think that any organization that claims to be staunch defenders of the Second Amendment would do everything in their power to align and connect themselves with the U.S. Corporation?

The insanity that exists in this country reveals itself when the overwhelming majority of Americans say that the U.S. Government is corrupt and they have no faith in them to do anything much good, and then turn around and run to the same Federal Government for strength and protection.

Nope! Sorry! You can continue to pay your money to the NRA and now you can have Oliver North as your spokesperson who will in their deceptive ways continue to downgrade the Second Amendment to nothing more than a government allotment of a right to keep and bear only those arms THEY deem appropriate and purchased the only way THEY deem appropriate and kept the only way THEY deem appropriate.

SHALL NEVER BE INFRINGED?

Share

NSSF Sends Dick’s Packing

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)-The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industries;

Board of Governors today unanimously voted to expel Dick’s Sporting Goods from membership for conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Foundation. <<<Read More>>>

Share

The Right to Live is Supreme…Only If You Are a Liberal

The title above is part of what a California politician was quoted as saying while making his proposal to force everyone to turn in their “assault/military-style weapons” or face mandatory jail sentences.

According to NBC News, Eric Swalwell, a democratic said, “the right to live is supreme over any other.” No, seriously. That’s what the news article says.

Evidently, that “supreme” right is limited therefore it is not supreme. As with everything this country has brainwashed to believe and repeat, like my hate is better than your hate, a “supreme” right to life only applies to those who choose to believe if guns are banned they won’t die. For the rest of us who know better? Well, I guess we can just go to hell!

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

National Support the Second Amendment Rally

Share

Gun Control Laws Aimed At Public Safety: The Devil is in the Definitions

Yesterday I posted a notice about the intent of Maine lawmakers to introduce a bill disguised as a “Community Protection Order” that will “Prevent High-Risk Individuals” from possessing firearms.

Some may say the intent of the proposed legislation is a good idea and perhaps that is true to some extent. A serious argument can be made as to whether such a law is an infringement on the Second Amendment as well as Due Process.

But forget about that for a moment.

Much of the problem with any of these laws is that interpretations of definitions are left up to a court and the arguments of lawyers. That, in and of itself, should alert us immediately to serious problems.

The crux of this proposed legislation is centered around “mental illness” and/or a person’s propensity toward violent and emotional behavior. Recognizing the seriousness of these conditions is a matter of a person’s perspective. Do we really want to limit Due Process based on the perspective of a judge?

LD 1884, is the Maine proposed bill which is the matter of topic. I’ll go ahead and post what this legislation uses for “definitions” to help understand the intent of the law and offer comments after.

§ 401.  Definitions

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings.

1.  Community protection order.   “Community protection order” means a written order signed by the court that prohibits and enjoins temporarily, if issued pursuant to subchapter 2, or on an extended basis, if issued pursuant to subchapter 3, a named individual from having a firearm in that individual’s custody or control or owning, purchasing, possessing or receiving or attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.
2.  Family or household member.   “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in Title 19-A, section 4002, subsection 4.
3.  High-risk individual.   “High-risk individual” means an individual who presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual and:

A.  Has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication but has not demonstrated a pattern of voluntarily and consistently taking the individual’s medication while not under supervision; or
B.  Is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct.

The fact that an individual has been released from a mental health facility or has a mental illness that is currently controlled by medication does not establish that the individual presents an imminent and substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to the individual or to another individual for the purposes of this chapter. As used in this subsection, “mental illness” has the same meaning as in section 3318-A, subsection 1, paragraph B.

4.  Restrained individual.   “Restrained individual” means an individual who is the subject of a community protection order.
Community Protection Order – Of note here is that this order can be issued in one of two ways – either as a temporary order by a court that has determined that an individual fits the bill’s criteria of being barred from having anything to do with a gun, or the same conditions on an extended basis once again according to the interpretation of the court of Subchapters 2 and 3.
The title of this order is designed to mislead the public into thinking this is the will of the “community” a communistic term and that it is for the purpose of keeping that “community” safe from those with a “mental illness.” After all, all those with a “mental illness” are mass murderers…right?
High-Risk Individual – This is where things get really dicey. A “High-Risk Individual” is here defined as someone who a judge thinks (his perspective of course because there are no real definitions for this condition) is going to hurt himself or another person. In addition to this perceived condition, this person has a “mental illness” – again an interpretation based on biased training or thinking/ideology. Once a court decides for themselves a person has a mental illness they must then decide whether they think this person has been taking their medications as prescribed by some quack doctor.
The suggestion here is that if a judge, having decided you have a “mental” condition, deems that you haven’t demonstrated “a pattern of voluntarily and consistently” taking your pills you lose your right to self-protection and due process.
Part B of this section is a real doozy! If it is shown “through evidence” (wink-wink) that actions by any person with a court’s definition of mental illness can show a “reasonable belief” that such a person has a disposition toward “violent or emotionally unstable conduct,” then they will be issued a Community Protection Order – perhaps ostracized for life.
The real joke is when the authors of the bill attempt to mislead the voters by saying just because a person has a mental illness, and has been “released from” a nut house, so long as they are being good brain-dead zombies and taking their chemicals, doesn’t necessarily mean they are a threat to the valued “community.” RIGHT!
History has shown us that it is most often a needless task to keep “mentally ill” people institutionalized and pumped up or down with chemicals and is a drain to that valued community, so they are gathered up and murdered. After all, these valued communities cannot be bogged down and given bad images from anyone with a “mental illness.” They MIGHT pose a threat, real or imagined, to their way of life. Society decides who lives and who dies.
Restrained Individual – Once you have met all the criteria that the “Community” has determined using their own standards of measurements, including societal tolerances, political ideology, and in general operation under the fear instilled in them by actions of a fascist governmental regime, the lucky winner becomes labeled as a “Restrained Individual.” How fortunate.
Whether you agree with the intent of the proposed bill or not shouldn’t matter once you consider how such fascist laws, put into play by willing and eager totalitarians, are a serious threat to any society that still deems itself to be free.
Giving power to the Courts and to governments to make decisions based on highly abstract and illusory definitions is quite akin to National Socialism. If you don’t fully comprehend National Socialism then you haven’t been paying very close attention.
There are channels that already exist in which efforts to control a deranged person from committing mass murder. If the information given to the public about the shooting in Parkland, Florida is at all truthful, then the lesson to walk away with is that those with authority to have intervened failed in their jobs. Insanity tells us to make more fascist laws that will not and cannot be enforced will somehow make a difference.
But this problem is not endemic to Maine. Since the Parkland, Florida shooting many state governments and the Federal government have proposed laws that are similar that leave the interpretation of what determines a mental illness, propensity to violence, or emotional unstableness up to the courts and the governments. Even fake Second Amendment advocates have stood firmly behind such insane legislation.
With each passing day, it amazes me more and more the eagerness of totalitarian useful idiots to help tie the noose that will one day be their demise. In the days of Marx and Stalin, when these two were finished using those that helped bring them to power, they just murdered them to get them out of their way.
So what’s happening to you today?
Share