October 17, 2021

Question 3 Asks The Wrong Question

With each passing day I read more of the debate about Maine’s referendum Question 3, in which the proposers intend to create some sort of hocus-pocus, jibber-jabber about something called a universal background check in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminal murderers – and so they target lawful citizens.

No matter how the issue is sliced and diced, guns aren’t the problem…nor are cars, baseball bats, golf clubs, butcher’s knives, poison, airplanes, bombs, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, doctors, lawyers, politicians, presidents, and the words that come out of your mouth. All of these things, and more, can and do kill people everyday and yet because of our “conditioning” we can only talk about guns, with some lofty notion that if we could just get rid of all of them…well, Kumbaya.

Never, ever is the discussion about why people want to kill other people. Never. Objects are only weapons, tools, to cause trauma and death by a person to another person. Perhaps it’s time to change the discussion and focus on why there is so much anger and hatred that it causes a person to do such unexplained, heinous acts.

And my day wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t say:

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share

Question 3 Debate

question3debate

Share

Man’s Laws Will Forever Fail

Nothing that man does is guaranteed, nor does he have the authority to assure the right of liberty to anyone, for any reason. It is in man’s nature to be lawless. Only the perfect laws of our Creator, Yahuweh, can place us in an eternal state of liberty.

In Vattel’s Law of Nations, a compilation of documents many believe were the cornerstone in devising the U.S. Constitution and ruling guidelines over much of the world…once upon a time, it is stated that liberty cannot be achieved without laws. The largest problem with this statement is that these are the words of man and the laws of man. They always fail.

In our struggle to “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s, and unto Yahuweh, that which is Yahuweh’s,” we are left dealing with man’s laws and whether those laws directly contradict the Laws of Yahuweh. Regardless of how great and wonderful you think the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are, they are not the inspired words of our Creator. They are man’s words. Because they are man’s words, they are guaranteed to be broken.

In Maine’s debate about Question 3, a proposal crafted by reprobate minds, we see that one man, his billions of dollars and his many blind followers, think of themselves as gods of this world – and as such they probably are. Michael Bloomberg wants to dictate to Maine people, and of course ultimately the world, how, where and when they will be able to adequately, or equitably, defend themselves against the darkness of evil from those who have deliberately turned or been turned into continued lawlessness. Why should he or any other man be allowed to do that by anyone?

In the second paragraph of the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence, it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Life” in part: The interval between birth and death.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, defines “Happiness” in part: Comfort, consolation, contentment, ease, enjoyment, pleasure, satisfaction. The constitutional right of men to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity, or develop the faculties, so as to give to them the highest enjoyment.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, contributes four columns, on two pages, defining Liberty. Of particular importance, to me anyway, are the following:

Liberty. Freedom: exemption from extraneous control. Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others… The absence of arbitrary restraint…

The word “liberty” includes and comprehends all personal rights and their enjoyment….It also embraces right of self-defense against unlawful violence.

For whatever man’s laws are worth to you, our own Founders acknowledged, if only for themselves, that “their Creator” (to me that would be Yahuweh) gave to us unquestioned rights – unalienable – among which are Life, Liberty and Happiness. When you examine Black’s Law Dictionary, how and why, then, have we allowed man to limit and destroy unalienable rights, including the right of a creation of Yahuweh to choose how they will defend themselves, their families and their property? What right does Michael Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Barrack Obama or any other man have to pretend to be “their creator” and limit an unquestioned right – one as important as being able to choose the necessary and proper way to defend oneself?

In the debate about Question 3, I have yet to read anybody’s suggestions, opinions or ideas that even come close to expressing the desire to migrate more closely to the unblemished Second Amendment, which must have been founded under the principal that all men are created equal, that they they are endowed by Yahuweh with unquestioned rights, including self-defense.

A Maine representative says that Question 3 is “too broadly written.” He also says everybody he knows will “begrudgingly cough up the cash” in order to “transfer” a gun in the state. That’s nice, but what about the thousands of people who don’t have any cash to begrudgingly give up to a man’s law? Are they now eliminated from, i.e. no longer created equal, the unalienable rights described above. Whoa to the delusional person who also stated that this “inconvenience” (spending money to be subjected to a government spying routine) levied onto law-abiding citizens should be no problem. Inconvenience? This is the value-weighted nonsense that dominates the mindless – even those possessing billions of dollars.

Another says that Question 3 would be a violation of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives law. Maybe, maybe not. To think that one man’s law, of which pays no mind to the foundation of “there can be no liberty without law,” would somehow have meaning to another man’s laws, of which the people did not participate in creating, is a practice in futility – it’s also a bit of insanity.

We can also read an opinion piece about the killing of people, real or staged, in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, extolling the benefits of having lawful armed citizens in places where more reprobate minds are running loose looking for people to kill. Of the reference here is that places like malls and far too many other places are “gun-free zones.”

If I, as a creation of Yahuweh, as acknowledged in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, have an unquestioned right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, how then, even when defined in Black’s Law Dictionary that rights are distributed equally among all, is it an equal distribution and opportunity for me to be able to choose how to defend myself against crazies, when man establishes “zones” where I give up my right to choose? And these “zones” are growing rapidly. Bloomberg’s intent is to turn Maine into a gun-free zone. What good is any item for protection if there is no place to lawfully use it?

We can also read the words of a Maine man, former chief counsel of Maine Gov. Paul LePage, explain about how Bloomberg’s proposal “misses the target.” The author states, “if we need to do something, let’s first identify the problem,” and then suggests crafting more laws for specific problems. Are there problems? Who decides what’s a problem. There are no laws that stop criminals from killing somebody that they have a mind to kill. Why is it then we keep pouring on of more and more useless laws? Don’t you get it……YET?

In addition to this political double-speak, the same author says that in answer to hypothetical responses to those who ask, “so, what, we should do nothing?” – his only answer, again, political double-speak, “No one is saying that.”

Well then what are they saying? What are they offering for “solutions” to the “problem?” You’ll never get them because all responses that make the media outlets come only from politicians or people brainwashed by the politicians. It is insanity and we must worship it because it’s everywhere and promoted everywhere.

We hear a lot of mumbo-jumbo, rants and diatribes from both sides – one pitted against the other in attempts to out-rhetoric the other. What a laugh. Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the vote on Question 3 in November, I still have lost my right to choose how to defend myself and what defense is left is limited in geographical scope. I will soon live in one giant gun-free zone. Where are any of these limits found in our explanations of unalienable rights?

As insane as the world and the people in it have become, rational thought would be that as a people we would be looking first at what caused the world’s insanity and secondly, how can we further insure that people have the right to decide for themselves? But that is NEVER going to happen.

In Scripture, in Mark 7: 6-7, we read: “This people honoreth me with lips, but their heart is far away from me.

7 But they worship me in vain, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Also in Collosians 2: 8 -“Beware lest there be any man that spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, through the traditions of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not after Yahushua.”

We see that man pretends to honor Yahuweh with lip service, but outwardly they cling to the laws and traditions of men, even to a point where those traditions and laws directly oppose “that which is Yahuweh’s.” People have come to know nothing but the fake, commandments (lies) of men and willingly find trust and faith in them. It is the focus of their lives and many don’t know it – they are incapable of recognizing it.

I have many times asked why are people all around me so blinded by the lies of men – how could they not see what seems obvious? However, in 2 Thessalonians 2, we read that for those who have not sought to honor Yahuweh through salvation and the keeping of His Commandments, “And therefore Yahuweh shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe lies,

That all they might be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”

These things were foretold by Yahushua as what it would be like in the Last Days. Surely we are in the last days as the “strong delusion” appears in too many people.

Here’s an example of someone, no doubt, operating under “strong delusion.”

cutoutquestion3sign

Share

Hey, Mike! Take a Hike!

We will see whose undies Sample’s new sign in Boothbay Harbor, Maine wads up in places where the sun don’t shine and most people have their heads.

miketakehike

Share

Go Ahead! Make My Day!

Share

How Much “Sacrifice” of “Liberties” is Too Much?

*Editor’s Note* – This is another example of the revelation to fascists and totalitarians as to the willingness to cede rights that some clown deems reasonable. I’ve written before that Maine’s Question 3 is, in fact, a referendum by the gun stealing lobby to determine how much Mainer’s are willing to give up, in order to keep some. Not so bright totalitarians have tried twice, unsuccessfully, we think, to ban bear baiting, hounding and trapping. But what have they learned? I’ll let you decide that. In their greed, they lost twice. They lost patience and perhaps for a good reason. They should have learned what Mainers are willing to give up in order to keep some of their bear hunting wishes. It’s no difference with guns and gun rights. Bloomberg and his coagulation of fools should be learning just how much of the Second Amendment – that amendment that offers no variations or concessions to practice – Mainers are willing to give up to keep some.

It always appears that in attempts to, not support the Second Amendment, but oppose those who hate it, perhaps in efforts to appear nice and reasonable, too often we read and hear their self-perceived reasonableness in restricting the Second Amendment. Is the same amount of reasonableness afforded other items on the Bill of Rights? This is the valuable information fascists like Bloomberg need to take into the next round. Instead of suggesting there is no need for “universal background checks” and that this proposal is complicated and unenforceable, why not a stand against background checks? We know they don’t work and what other constitutional right do we have to undergo a centralized government background check in order to exercise that right?

Instead, we compromise and will continue to compromise until there is essentially nothing left. In mathematics, if you keep halving a number, you never reach zero. However, if you take a perfectly good length of rope, a tool with many uses, and keep cutting it in half, eventually you end up with nothing worth keeping.

If you believe in your right to self protection and that you should have the choice to decide how you want to do that, then there is no need to be apologizing or seeking compromise.

“As a nation, we’ve already sacrificed too many liberties in the name of security to reasonably expect either. Mainers shouldn’t be willing to sacrifice any more of our liberties in the name of our own security, let alone to possibly, slightly increase the security of other people who are already pretty secure.”<<<Read More>>>

Share

Question 3 And Collateral Damage – It’s Real

Many say that the newly-passed gun control law in Oregon is a clone to the one fascist Michael Bloomberg is trying to buy in Maine with his Question 3 referendum. Blind followers refuse or don’t care the real implications of such a draconian law, and to somehow justify their positions they simply deny any suggestion that Question 3 poses multiple issues at many levels and is impossible to enforce, short of all out gun registration and confiscation.

However, we now see that in Oregon, a church pastor won a rifle in a raffle. He gave it to a friend for safe keeping. As I understand it, he didn’t sell him the gun, he didn’t give him the gun and he didn’t loan him the gun. He asked his friend to store it for him.

In the end, this pastor (it doesn’t matter if he was the boogie man) broke the law, but administrators of the police state opted not to “charge” the man for breaking their fascist laws.

Those that

DON’T GO LOOK

don’t want to go look because they are not interested in the rights of others. It is time that we begin a systematic destruction of all rights the same way these totalitarians are dismantling the right to self protection because they don’t like it. There’s a lot of so-called “rights” that I don’t like, but I don’t feel the need to destroy someone else’s rights in order to promote mine. But that may soon change. Maybe these blinded clowns will realize their friends are their enemies when, one day, they discover – if at all possible – there is nothing left except their complete slavery to government fascists – if they are allowed to live long enough to see it.

Share

If Someone Killed My Son, How Would I Feel?

Among the dense forest of facts, lies, opinions, propaganda, brainwashing, ideology, nonsense, ignorance and anything else that’s worthless, comes an opinion piece published in a Maine newspaper in which the author asks, “If there was only one firearm-related murder in Maine this year, and it was your son, how would you feel?”

That’s very easy for me to answer…and no I have not lost my son to being shot. The answer is simple and to the point. I would be extremely angry. Angry, yes, that I lost my son, but most angry because there exists totalitarian, non thinking, brain dead idiots, lead by fascists like Michael Bloomberg and blindly followed by those too ignorant to understand they are headed toward a cliff where they will be asked to jump off and they will gladly do it. Their actions forbid my right to choose. What gives them that right? It matters not what my choices are, the mere fact that such nasty, rotten people feel entitled to prohibit me or my son, or anybody else, from having the right to choose how they can defend themselves against savages, the product of an immoral, hedonistic, diverse, tolerant, secular society.

No laws, regardless of their intent, are ever going to stop the criminal. If you believe there are more criminals today than yesterday, do you think this is so because there are more or less laws? Are there more criminals because the existing laws are not enforced? Do you think there are more criminals because society produces criminals for various reasons? And, does it matter?

What matters is what I have the right to do. That right is the right to choose. Nobody should be able to prohibit my right to choose how to protect myself and my family. No laws are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals who want them. That is a fact. Denying it doesn’t change it.

Take away my right to choose, and I will be most angry at people like Michael Bloomberg and those who don’t think and will not think and will react to emotions thinking if they increase the chances of my son being killed with a gun is somehow the right thing to do.

Sometimes life sucks. Making it suck for everybody else doesn’t change your suck factor.

Share

Of Course Question 3 Won’t Work Without Gun Registration

“According to an article in last week’s Las Vegas Review Journal, the Guinn Center, an independent think tank, took a close look at the Question 1 gun control ballot initiative in Nevada. Question 1 is practically identical to the Question 3 ballot initiative in Maine. The study said this about Nevada’s version of Question 3:

  • [it could] be a challenge to enforce, if not altogether unenforceable, without a firearm registration scheme — especially in rural counties with limited resources;”<<<Read More
Share

Question 3: Don’t Be An Asshat!

*Editor’s Note* – It’s just in the genetic makeup of some people. To say Maine’s Question 3 three “doesn’t touch the Second Amendment” is akin to telling the guy who just had his tongue cut out, he didn’t have his freedom of speech “touched.” I think I know someone who’s touched.

“Question 3 satisfies the big objection — it doesn’t touch the Second Amendment. It’s not gun control. It inconveniences some gun owners. Not all. Many feel as I do — we need to do something about gun violence.”<<<Read More>>> (or not)

asshat

asshatdontbe

Share