July 20, 2019

Guns and the Left’s Unfailing Insistence on Irrational Thought

This morning I was reading an article from a Maine Online publication about how the Legislature is going to consider a bill that would make it impossible for a convicted felon to own a muzzle-loading weapon, i.e. black powder gun. As I understand the current law, the Federal Government does not recognize a muzzle-loading gun as an official weapon. In Maine, where it is generally unlawful for a convicted felon to own even a muzzle-loading gun, he or she can make application to the State’s Commissioner of Public Safety for an exemption to that prohibition.

The argument in favor of the new proposed law, as presented by this newspaper, is a poor one and certainly exemplifies the irrational thoughts of leftist progressives. I’m not here to argue whether this law is good or bad, right or wrong, and whether or not a muzzle-loading gun is or is not a weapon. I’m here to expose the irrational thought that drives emotions when it comes to making decisions – such as the banning of guns or the making of irrational and useless laws.

This newspaper uses as the foundation of it’s argument is an event that happened in Maine 10 years ago, when a hunter, hunting with a muzzle-loading rifle, mistook his target and shot and killed a woman in the field behind her house. It was a tragic event. Maine law is very strict about the responsibility of the hunter to identify the target. Such was not the case here and it ended in unnecessary tragedy.

The hunter was not a “dangerous felon.” As a matter of fact he wasn’t even a felon. If memory serves me, the man had no criminal record and was a decent man within his community. His crime? Poor judgement and decision making. To err is human.

So, to a rational thinker, would this proposed new law, had it been in effect at the time, have prevented the death of an innocent young woman? Of course not.

However, under present law, the convicted felon can petition the Commissioner of Public Safety to allow an exemption of the state’s ban against felons owning a muzzle-loading gun. Should this felon be granted an exemption? I dunno, however, can any of us make that determination without knowing what the guidelines and requirements are that must be met before the Commissioner can permit such an exemption? Is this a clear cut case of forever banning this man from ever owning a gun? You’ll have to decide that. Forever is a long time. How long should he be punished?

The point here is that the proposed law is nonsense. It’s nonsense because it is stating in outright fashion that when the State of Maine made it’s current law allowing for exemptions, those making the law didn’t know what they were doing and that the process is flawed so that “dangerous felons” can have easy access to a gun.

Another question to ask is, how many exemptions have been granted by the Commissioner of Public Safety and how many, if there are any, of those exemptions resulted in crime committed with a muzzle-loading gun? A criminal is a criminal and criminals most often are criminals because they had total disregard of laws, such as the one being proposed.

Unless there is ample proof that the system in place is allowing for violent crimes that might have been prevented, this proposal is nothing more than Leftist piling on of totalitarian repression – emotional clap-trap.

Enough already.

Share

Wolf Whoas of France

siddowaysheepHistory be damned! Rights be damned! Making a living by damned! Farming be damned! People be damned! The damned environMENTALists are determined to protect their precious nasty wild canines no matter the cost to humans. That’s the brunt of the truth. I just wish that enough sensible people would stand up and speak up and yell, ENVIRONMENTALISM BE DAMNED!

But that won’t happen will it.

Here in the United States, a small, but vocal, and well-funded bunch of irrational, totalitarian and fascistic thinking people, are mounting their campaigns to protect wolves, coyotes, bears, lions, etc. If the predator is an effective enough tool to carry out their dictatorial missions, by God they will use it and have proven that they can.

Probably there are few people alive in the United States today that had the experience of living with wolves in this country, or if they did, they really don’t remember. But now that wolves are protected, more than the lives of human beings now and more so around the globe, the creeping up of the number of livestock kills, spread of disease and encounters with humans is becoming more and more public.

Recently in Idaho, the Siddoway Sheep Company lost nearly 200 sheep in one killing event by wolves. Within the environmental machination no sympathy or understanding is displayed. Instead, an increase in the assault against the American way of life, against heritage, against tradition, against family business, against ranching, demanding that if ranchers like the Siddoways would stop grazing on land the environmentalists call theirs, wolves attacking livestock would go away. How ignorant…..among other things.

This kind of destruction of livestock, property and personal life has been prevalent in certain areas around the globe since man decided to domesticate wild animals. France is no exception.

France, not unlike the U.S., killed off the wolves by the 1930s. If environmentalists, at all levels, would research, study and understand history, they would know why wolves were killed off and they would cease with their putrefying apophthegm, “wolves are misunderstood.” The only thing “misunderstood” is that environmentalists have no clue to the realities of attempting to “live with wolves.”

Due to environmentalists’ oppressive efforts to protect the wolf, even at the expense of human life, France now is seeing a return of the wolf and it is disagreeing miserably with sheep farmers. And yet the environmentalists show the perverted mental affliction by working even harder to protect the damned disease-infested wild dog, caring little, if any, for the human way of life.

According to Gnom.es National News Service, there are 60,000 sheep herders in France tending approximately 6 million sheep. Is it any wonder it is a wolf’s paradise? In the past five years alone, wolves have killed at least 20,000 sheep and the country states its official wolf count at around 250 animals. There is at least one account of 70 sheep dieing in one wolf attack.

French authorities reimburse sheep herders for their losses, and any idiot knows this is substandard compensation regardless of which communistic country it occurs in. In addition to the great losses and attempts by the government to keep wolf numbers in check, according to this article, nothing is helping.

French authorities spend millions each year to reimburse herders for lost animals and to subsidize the hulking Great Pyrenees guard dogs that now pad alongside many flocks. Despite the protestations of conservation groups, the government has also organized the shootings — “samplings,” in official parlance — of a handful of wolves. Nothing seems to have worked, though; sheep and goat losses doubled in the past five years to nearly 6,000 in 2012.

A bit odd isn’t it that many Americans would not hesitate to call France a communist country, at least a socialistic-run government and yet what is going on in France with ranchers trying to carry on their traditions and way of life, is being decimated by the exact same efforts and methods found here in the United States. So what does that make this country?

Share

Isn’t This an Explanation Why Obama and DHS are Stockpiling Ammunition?

NOTE!! This is a bogus proclamation!! Sorry for not being more thorough and vetting the info!

A quote from President Obama in a speech in Tanzania:

“The conservative era of the U.S. has ended. There is a new wind of change and hope for all Americans as we work to build a strong economy and a stronger nation. Americans want this change, Americans want what’s best for the country and my administration has been very receptive to listening to their ideas and needs,” the President said.
AP reporter Ramona Darlington, who attended the conference asked President Obama to explain what the profile of an American domestic terrorists is? Obama responded by saying, “Typically domestic terrorists in the U.S. are people who cling to obsolete beliefs from the time of the American Revolution. They are conservative Christians, reactionary Republicans and conspiracy theorists many of whom belong to racist hate groups.”
“Tea Partiers commonly own guns and stock up ammunition and food in anticipation of starting another civil war to overthrow the will of the governing body who represent all of the American people. We are prepared for any contingency and don’t expect to see any kind of large insurrection. Americans are capitalists who are much more interested in seeing America move forward. These terrorists groups are small in size and really present little danger,”

Share