June 27, 2017

Maine House strongly endorses new effort to arm forest rangers

*Editor’s Note* – If there actually existed a Second Amendment and/or the God-given right to defend and/or protect oneself and your property, this wouldn’t even be an issue to discuss or to find ways to fund. Instead of creating another of this country’s band of “Heroes,” every person, whether a forest ranger or a pig farmer, should have the right to choose whether they want to carry a weapon for protection.

“Rep. Lois Reckitt, D-South Portland, said she rarely votes for any bill that supports increasing access to guns, but she voted for this one.

“I am standing up for these folks who in my mind are another segment of the law enforcement community in Maine,” she said.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Suspended Black Conservative Columnist Speaks Out About Why She Quit St. Louis Post-Dispatch

*Editor’s Note* – Earlier today I posted President Donald Trump’s FAKE Executive Order  that he presented as “policy” of his administration to protect the right of free speech and freedom of religion. In my editorial note included with that post, I wrote of how there was no such thing as freedom of speech and that the Executive Order of Trump’s was nothing more that a further guarantee of the Government’s authority to control every aspect of your life.

The erosion of freedom of speech is further substantiated in the information contained in the press release that follows of one person being “suspended” from a news media company after writing an article about the Second Amendment.

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

“It’s Never Been a Secret That I Support the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association”

St. Louis, MO / Washington, DC – Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington , a black conservative, was recently suspended by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch after writing a column defending gun ownership.  She is now speaking out and available for interviews about the allegations made against her by the newspaper’s management and her decision to end writing for the Post-Dispatch altogether.

Washington was recently selected to help guide Project 21, a leadership network promoting the diversity of political opinion within the black community in America, as one of its co-chairmen.

A freelance contributor who began writing a column for the Post-Dispatch last November, Washington was suspended by the newspaper on April 28 after writing a column on guns that her editor complained did not mention her past affiliation with the National Rifle Association (NRA).  While she has worked with the NRA on media programs and projects in the past, she says she was never paid for her services and the opinions in the column were her own.

Washington’s support of gun ownership has never been a secret.  In her first column for the newspaper, she wrote: “With my father on active [military] duty, guns were always a part of life, so I considered the Second Amendment second in importance only to the religious protections afforded to us in the Constitution.” Before becoming a columnist, the Post-Dispatch reported on her work with the NRA. She also said the column in question –  “Guns and the Media” – was reviewed by the newspaper’s staff before publication.  That column criticized other Missouri newspapers that recently featured commentaries speculating that gun owners favored guns over child safety and asked readers to compare the NRA to the ISIS terrorism network.  In her column, she wrote: “Gun ownership in America is a right that is enshrined in the Constitution, and owning a gun has no bearing on whether people love their children.”

 Commenting on leaving the Post-Dispatch, Washington said:

It’s never been a secret that I support the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association. To effectively be suspended by a newspaper for that seems beyond comprehension. But that’s what I believe happened to me.

Last week, my final column for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch – “Guns and the Media” – discussed two anti-gun opinion columns in other Missouri papers. I think these commentaries were allowed to falsely accuse gun owners of prioritizing guns over child safety and tried to make the NRA and ISIS morally equivalent. I suggested such radical allegations were allowed to be published without challenge due to an editorial bias against guns.

Like all of my columns published by the newspaper, it was submitted, accepted, edited and approved by the staff of the Post-Dispatch. As a freelance writer, I was unable to post my work directly to their website. So I was obviously surprised when I was notified of a suspension that readers were told was due to my “ active promotional activities and professional association with the National Rifle Association, [which] represented an unacceptable conflict of interest.”

 I am not, nor have I ever been, an employee of the NRA. I was not compensated for my participation in an NRA documentary that was released last year nor was I paid for any appearances on NRA-affiliated media over the years. Some of this work was even previously reported on by the Post-Dispatch. There was never any attempt at deception.

 After much consideration, I have decided to terminate my relationship with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. When I began writing for the paper, it was with the belief that I would be able to present my opinions from a conservative perspective without interference. This has not been the case, and it makes any future relationship with the newspaper untenable.

 I stand by what I wrote, and it represents me and no other person or organization. I believe that, even in a commentary, it is irresponsible and proves an inherent bias when newspapers permit the comparison of NRA members to Islamic State terrorists and imply that gun-owning Americans cherish their firearms more than the safety of their children.

 To book an interview with Stacy Washington, contact Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476.

Project 21 members have been quoted, interviewed or published over 40,000 times since the program was created in 1992. Project 21 is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated, and may be earmarked exclusively for the use of Project 21.

Founded in 1982, the National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from some 60,000 individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. Sign up for email updates here. Follow us on Twitter at @NationalCenter for general announcements. To be alerted to upcoming media appearances by National Center staff, follow our media appearances Twitter account at @NCPPRMedia.

Share

A Precursor To “Permit-to-Purchase” Gun Bill Withdrawn

It has been brought to my attention that at least one member of the Maine House of Representatives, is stating that LD 1154 proposal has been withdrawn from further debate.

LD 1154 would have required that on either a Maine driver’s license or an official Maine identification card, information would be included as proof that an individual meets certain qualifications in order that they can legal purchase a firearm.

Share

Maine Sportsman’s Alliance Second Amendment Banquet

Share

Easy To Understand Math

Share

How Lives Could Have Been Saved

If the attack at the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood actually happened as we are being told, think of the number of lives that could have been saved if lawful citizens were allowed to carry for protection. As soon as this mind altered man opened fire, a legally armed man would have gunned him down.

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Someone asked me once, knowing that I support a person’s right to protection, what I was afraid of. My answer was simple. I’m not afraid of anything. But I would like the choice, that if I was in an airport and some deranged person pulled a gun from his baggage and began shooting, I could protect myself, my family, others around me and, if necessary, kill the son-of-a-bitch who’s killing people.

Share

Gun Deregulation: Quote of the Day

*Editor’s Comment* – Is this an emerging trend, set off by the perception of voters who believe they elected Donald Trump as the new president? This may be a first, at least from what I have heard and read for over a decade – a leader of a gun rights organization actually calling for “broad deregulation.”

Has the sissified trend toward compromise and “reasonable” restrictions to the Second Amendment, been temporarily suspended, due to the perception of a pro Second Amendment president – who by the way strongly supported Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban?

Pssst! But Don’t Go Look!

“We want broad deregulation of firearms,” said Dudley Brown, the president of the National Association for Gun Rights. “It’s high time Republican majorities in the executive and legislative branches come in and make some broad, broad changes. As the saying goes, ‘Dance with the ones who brung ya.’”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Pie In The Sky Restoration of Rights

*Editor’s Note* – The below commentary is pie in the sky nonsense based on a false belief that the rulers of the United States Corporate Administration are chosen by the people to apply the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the servitude. To play within a false and rigged system, believing you can change the false and rigged system is an act of futility and a display of the lack of understanding of history and the application of laws and rights. There is too much (money) at stake that the Ruling Establishment would actually allow a “Wyatt Earp” into the White House. To believe that Donald Trump is going to end Progressivism is a mirror image of 2008, when an equal number of American citizen servants believed “Hope n Change” would end Conservatism. Nothing changes but perception.

While the author of the linked-to commentary suggests some ways to ensure the continuation of our Second Amendment rights, he fails to reveal his “reasonable” gun control necessities – of which I am most confident he, like most fake Second Amendment advocates, has a laundry list.

If Trump were going to be one to govern outside the Establishment ways, he would be talking about God-given rights and protecting them and not seeking the power of government to change government. That has never worked and never will. It’s all just pie in the sky.

“To do so, we enact national reciprocity; we remove the burdens placed on law-abiding citizens and we destroy the false notion of “gun free zones.” As in the economic examples above, a free people will flourish, crime will reduce even further than it has, and the desire for a government to enact more “gun control’s” will perish in the face of freedom thereby relinquishing the enemies of our rights to the ashbin of history with the rest of progressive America.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Maine Law Enforcement are OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to Question 3

sammapquestion3

Share