December 9, 2019

“Red Flag” “Extreme Risk Order” Gone Wrong

What could possibly go wrong? That was the question I asked the other day when I wrote about so-called “Red Flag” laws designed in principle to stop crimes before they happen…yeah, right.

Since that writing we have had an incident in Maryland where police went to a man’s house in order to “execute” a “Red Flag” order and ended up executing the man instead of the order.

In addition, there is a case in Vermont where hearsay and emotional nonsense resulted in an “Extreme Risk Order” being carried out in which police executing the order went to a man’s house, not in anyway involved in a supposed plan to cause harm but because he was a relative, and owned firearms, confiscated all of his firearms, which incidentally were locked up inside the home.

This gives us some ideas of “what could possibly go wrong.” To some the intent is good but the execution stinks. Are we now so damned strongly delusional that we can justify the taking of one man’s life thinking we MIGHT be protecting the life of another? Evidently.

It should have been proven over and over again that forcing a ban on guns of lawful citizens and/or taking those firearms away does nothing to get at the root problem of why there is violence in our society. Instead, it creates more crime. Are we to believe and accept that when law enforcement personnel are carrying out their orders, the loss of life and/or the suspension of one’s rights is in order because of hearsay and unwarranted suspicion? Is this what President Trump meant when he said to hell with Due Process. Are we to arrest the “bastards” and then ask questions later? If so, welcome to the corporation of police states, or perhaps you like the word fascism better, carried out by willing totalitarians brainwashed to think they are doing the right thing.

What could possibly go wrong? And yet, we still see so-called Second Amendment supporters clamoring with Leftist totalitarians to do “reasonable” things, like the destruction of the Bill of Rights, all in the name of public safety.

Go ahead. Support those “Red Flag” laws. Then sit back and enjoy your own created furtherance of slavery and oppression.

Share

“Red Flag” Laws Are More Than Asking a Judge to be Clairvoyant

David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), writes in his latest column that “Red Flag Laws” ask our judges to be clairvoyant, to predict what someone might do if they had a gun in their possession.

The issue here is that when someone deems, from their own perspective, that a person might be a danger to themselves or to other people, should have their constitutional rights – in this case the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms – taken away from them forever or until such time as a judge or others think that right should be restored.

What can possibly go wrong?

The mindset in this post normal society of immorality and social decadence, is that a person is incapable of being responsible for their actions. While this may be partly true when comparing times of the past with those of the future, such irrational thinking is based upon fear and ignorance.

Where once people minded their own damned business, today the trend is to get into the face and affairs of others, especially when another person is operating from a position of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that disagrees with the accuser, i.e. that person willing to file a petition to have another person’s rights stolen from them.

Isn’t the biggest of all questions in this regard, who is going to become ruler of the chicken house? I’ve been around the block a time or two and there exists virtually nobody involved in politics/law enforcement (they go hand in hand), or even health and mental health professionals, who should be trusted to make any kind of judgement as to whether a person is deemed dangerous to themselves or to others, short of the obvious lunatic.

Trahan points out (in a different articles) that laws designed to steal a person’s Second Amendment rights are unique only to the Second Amendment where it is being required to take some kind of “competency” test before you can exercise a right. The argument is often that, in this case, a Second Amendment right can cause the death of a person. So what! Any honest person can tell you that all rights can, directly and indirectly result in bodily injury, mental injury, and sometimes death.

Guns are singled out and always have been. They are singled out because of the mind control and manipulation of all things in this totalitarian/fascist country to keep the masses scared to death, forcing them to call upon more government to keep them safe. The remarkable insanity of this approach is that people call upon the most corrupt and hypocritical organization that exists in the world today, to keep them safe and to protect them. It shows what a fantastic job these fascist bastards have done, when once we were taught that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to insure the tyrannical pond scum of governments would not take from us our rights.

Strong delusion prohibits people from seeing such a basic concept!

At the end of Trahan’s piece he writes: “One of the important lessons I have learned is that the underlying causes of domestic violence, mental health problems and suicide are far more complicated than just taking away a gun.

Furthermore, advocates know best how to address these issues. Instead of trying to find more sophisticated ways to justify a new law that runs counter to our fundamental constitutional rights, I suggest bringing these groups together, with lawmakers and state leaders, to examine these issues in a much more comprehensive and cooperative manner.

It seems like a better approach than relying on laws that ask judges and law enforcement to predict the future.

It is of political necessity for public servants to make statements about “bringing groups together,” but in reality, this post normal existence has moved far beyond any pragmatic approach to solve societal problems. Such approach always results in diminished rights.

So where does that leave us? Simple. Trahan already points out the existing laws that deal with those who choose to use violence. These so-called “Red Flag Laws” are a most dangerous act that places god-like responsibilities into the hands of some in whom I wouldn’t entrust the care of my chickens. Seriously! Do you want some scum-ball politician or incompetent, agenda-driven, crooked judge deciding what’s best for you?

Fear and ignorance of guns leaves a person with irrational hallucinations. And yet I recall the aftermath of the Boston Marathon when people lined the streets watching and applauding as law enforcement, without proper due process of the law, went door to door, sometime busting down doors, pointing weapons of mass destruction at innocent people, under the guise of looking for “terrorists.” This is what fear can do for you. That fear is so well engrained into the minds of the feckless masses, they fail to see the truth and importance of the protection of our existence through the total protection of our rights.

No person should be allowed, say nothing of granted, the authority to stand in judgement as to whether any person is a danger to themselves or others, let alone pretending they can predict the future.

The issue here is not the gun and never has been. To declare the gun the problem is as intelligent as saying lips are responsible for what a person says.

Until such time as this society is willing to address the real problems they have created through their decadence, perversion, and adiamorphicism, frantically and irrationally trying to find just one more LAW that will stop a gun from killing someone, it remains the epitome of craziness.

Share

Ban Maine’s Nomination to Head Public Safety?

Should we choose to support the new Maine governor, Janet Mill’s, pick to head up the Department of Public Safety, then it would be hypocritical to veer from Mike Sauschuck’s reasoning, or lack there of, and we should ban all things that we perceive as scary. Oh, wait a minute. That is already underway in this misguided, brainwashed, sissified, perverted society we have created.

In a report found online, Sauschuck was quoted as saying that when a person was seen openly carrying a rifle, “What he did was scare the hell out of a lot of people.” If that’s his and his followers’ beliefs, then by all means let’s ban Michael Sauschuck, those who support him, and many of his followers because, putting it bluntly, he and his ilk “scare the hell” out of me.

And part of what scares the hell out of me (seriously though, nothing scares the hell out of me) is his other statement made where the report filed this: “he said he stands by his personal views and believes no constitutional right is unlimited.”

This is the totalitarian effort on display all across America. If no constitutional right is unlimited, then why bother to have any. Let’s simply erase anything in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (along with “settled” laws like Roe v. Wade) that might even suggest some sort of liberty or freedom that was once exercised freely in this out of control society. After all, if no right is unlimited then the end result always becomes a complete erasure of any and all rights.

The basic foundation of a “conservative” approach to the governing of a people is limited government and the protection of all rights, whether those rights are considered unalienable (never questioned and/or from GOD ALMIGHTY) or are issued as privileges by the fascistic government.

Without the rule of law whose strength lies in the protection of individual rights, chaos ensues. It always has and always will.

When any person in a position of authority over others operate from a position that no laws are sacred and meant to be broken or changed in a progressive fashion that spirals deeper into immoral existence, oppression follows. Anyone would know this who studies true history.

It’s scary if you can see it. But few can or will, even when it is too late…like it already is.

Share

“Access” to Gun Safety Equipment a Red Herring?

This morning I was reading David Trahan’s first in a series of how to change the discussion about guns to one of safety rather than control and/or limitations of rights. Sounds like a great idea. But….

It is for the most part impossible to offer any counter argument against anyone or anything that is seeking to promote gun safety, without being viewed as a radical, uncaring person. After all, who doesn’t want to stop accidental shootings of the innocent?

But like taking away gun rights from the lawful people claiming such will make us all safe and eliminate gun violence, will actions, in the name of gun safety, accomplish more than will be taken away by limited access to your own guns?

Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine (SAM), suggests that finding a way to increase access to gun safety equipment (safes, locks, etc.) along with an education program to convince people that “proper” use and storage of guns is the “proper” way to be “safe.”

In gun control discussions, those who advocate for gun control, including the radical extreme of a complete ban on them, do so from a position of emotional nonsense with no statistical evidence that banning guns stops violence. It might stop the occasional “accident.”

On the contrary, there is substantial evidence to show that creating “safe zones” and placing bans and restrictions on guns causes the complete opposite result than what was sold as a solution to a problem.

Gun rights advocates stand up in defense of the quasi-right to keep and bear arms by claiming this statistic to substantiate their position. Doesn’t it make sense that if prohibiting people the right to own a gun causes the incidence of gun violence to increase – say Chicago and D.C. – then this same logic should be used all across discussions about guns, gun rights, and gun safety.

This brings us to the question about promoting gun safety from a position of “educating” (followed by government demand) people about how to “properly” store a gun to keep it out of the reach of those who shouldn’t have access to it – child or criminal.

Where are the statistics and actual data that supports the claim that “proper” storage reduces or prevents access to guns that might be used by criminals or getting into the hands of children? And where are the data that supports any notion that locking up guns doesn’t affect a person’s ability to protect themselves in the case of needing quick and easy access to a gun.

I recall discussion in the Heller v. D.C. Supreme Court decision about whether it was constitutional to require any gun owner to have to keep all their guns under lock and key at all times. It was decided by that Court that it was, in fact not only unreasonable but unconstitutional for the government to enforce such a mandate. Of course the difference here is that one is a mandatory government problem and the other presented as voluntary, and yet we find a group labeled as a gun rights advocate, promoting voluntary gun lock-up.

There needs to be some real believable evidence presented before anyone should be discussing programs that will lead to the mandate that guns need locks and/or to be locked up.

If it is true that gun control laws only punish the law-abiding citizens, and an honest man might conclude that any kind of locking system is a restriction of the Second Amendment – a right to keep and bear arms, and in Maine’s case “shall never be infringed” – then isn’t promoting a bit of a red herring suggesting locks, that limit a person’s right to quick and easy access, in fact an “infringement” of that right?

I would like to see proof that the lives possibly saved by locking up guns is going to outweigh the loss of life and property because locks disallow quick and easy access in order to protect a person and his/her property.

But as always it has to be presented as a person’s choice. If the evidence is so strong to convince gun owners that locking up their guns is going to save lives, then let it remain their choice. I would hope that in Trahan’s suggestions of how we talk about gun safety, he includes easy access to gun safety classes for all. I grew up with guns throughout my home and my parents taught me all about them. That education works and we didn’t need, nor would it have been practical, to lock our guns up. Perhaps the money savings offered could be better spent in teaching everyone, including children, how to safely use a firearm.

And just for the record, even using Trahan’s mathematical calculations that determines with membership to certain clubs (elitism), discounts, and tax breaks, $400 for a gun safe is beyond my bank account and I’m sure that of many other people. It’s easy to toss out dollars and cents, without having much sense.

Just like how removing guns from the lawful citizens does nothing to prevent gun violence, teaching people to lock up their guns will do nothing to educate all people about how to use them and be safe around them.

Share

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

Maine Legislature To Consider 14 “Gestapoesque” Gun Bills

With the Democrats taking over the Maine Legislature, as near as I can tell they plan to introduce a minimum of 12 gun control, rights destroying bills that will do nothing to stop what it is the progressives believe they can stop. So, what else is new?

Without having the text of each and every bill, at this point all we can do is go by the titles of the bills. For those with a brain, we know that most bill’s titles are deceptive at best and an outright lie in most cases.

If we examine the titles, the Democrats intend to ban large capacity magazines (whatever that is); protect children by requiring safe storage of guns (whatever that is); mandatory background checks for anyone who even thinks about a gun (whatever that is); a prohibition that would stop “extremely dangerous and suicidal individuals” (whatever that is) from owning a gun; allow municipalities to ban guns wherever they choose; establish a “voluntary” (whatever that is) gun collection day (all unwanted guns can be dropped off at my house); waiting periods they believe will reduce suicides and violent crimes (chuckle).

What a waste of time.

I would suppose we can also expect abortions to increase, Welfare to explode, illegal immigration to expand exponentially, unemployment to go up and free CELLPHONES for everyone.

Share

98% of Mass Shootings Happen In “Gun-Free” Zones

By our count, the U.S. makes up 1.49 percent of the murders worldwide, 2.20 percent of the attacks, and less than 1.15 percent of the mass public shooters. All these are much less than America’s 4.6 percent share of the world population.

Most gunmen are smart enough to know that they can kill more people if they attack places where victims can’t defend themselves. That’s one reason why 98 percent of mass public shootings since 1950 have occurred in places where citizens are banned from having guns.<<<Read More>>>

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