July 12, 2020

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

ACTION ALERT: GUN CONFISCATION BILL PUBLIC HEARING

Sen. Dion’s so-called “Community Protection Order” bill, LD 1884, will have a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, April 3, at 1:00 PM in Room 438.

This bill gives law enforcement, disgruntled former spouses or domestic partners, and even anyone who claims to ever have been a sexual partner, the power to ask a judge to order that all of your firearms be *immediately* confiscated by police without prior notice; the first you will know of the order will be when the police knock on your door to demand your guns.

This bill has many problems, and is a close copy of bills that have been pressed by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg in multiple states. Anti-gun forces sense an opportunity to pass this bill in the heat of the astroturf outrage they have fomented over the last few weeks. We cannot allow this dangerous bill to advance.

We need you to show up in Augusta on April 3rd to be seen and make your voice heard before the Judiciary Committee. We need as many gun owners as possible to flood the State House and speak with one voice against this cynical, opportunistic and anti-due-process bill whose only real purpose is to tighten the noose around the throats of gun owners.

This is the only anti-gun bill which has made it this far in this session. We absolutely need your help to end it. Please find a way to be at the State House for this hearing. It may cost you a vacation day, or even a day’s pay, but it will cost us all far more if this bill becomes law. We cannot allow that.

The text of the bill is at the link below. Read it and weep. And remember, this is only what they think they can pass *today*. You can rest assured that if this becomes law, it will be amended to be even worse at the first opportunity.

See you in Augusta.
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/b … 071901.asp


Todd Tolhurst
President
Gun Owners of Maine, Inc.

Share

Stevens’ Call to Repeal Second Amendment Caps a Career of Judicial Subversion

There are some very good points and interesting data in this article.

“Recognizing the dangers of “pure democracy” mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. Stevens knows that. His ignoring it is a motivated choice.

“What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without probable cause and a legal warrant. We can’t torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on your part to disqualify yourself from incarceration after being afforded full due process protections, we cannot strip you of your right to keep and bear arms.”

If the position of your argument is that the Bill of Rights was, in fact, written for “we the people” and not “We the People,” the author of this piece says that what has happened over time is a failure of the Government to uphold the Bill of Rights and therefore that same Government and its judicial representatives (former in this case) try to tell us that such guaranteed rights are nothing but relics of the past.

Yesterday in my article I brought that point up: “It would seem that when ideology, and in particular, political ideology, doesn’t care much for certain bills of rights, the call is to repeal them or demand “reasonable” limitations. Perhaps if the Second Amendment hadn’t become so bastardized from its original intent and the people were actually allowed to keep and bear arms without infringement from any other source, there would be no calling out by some of the people to repeal the Second Amendment in an attempt to rid this nation of private ownership of arms. On the same token, if all the other Amendments had not been so muted and muddled, that protection of rights might be worth fighting to save.”

I am reminded of one time as a child I watched in amazement as a childhood buddy made a hole in is PF Fliers. After the hole was cut, he took his finger and began ripping the hole bigger. I asked him what he was doing and he said, “My mother doesn’t think my sneakers are old or that I need a new pair. So, I’m making them old.”

For some, there is little that is more pleasing and exciting as a new car. If you fail to take care of it and keep it running and in good mechanical condition, it too, becomes a relic.

Share

Gun Confiscation and Prison Time

From Guns America:

“If you currently own a reciprocating stock you will soon be in possession of a machine gun. Unlawful possession of a machine gun is a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison, according to the DOJ.”

“NRA called for “additional regulations” back in October. Trump wasted no time and kicked the movement to ban these devices into high gear. There was no pause to consider the ramifications of the policy change. Even more frightening, Trump seemed enthusiastic about getting it done.”

“By the way, bump stocks, we’re writing that out. I’m writing that out myself,” said president Trump in February.  “I don’t care if Congress does it or not. I’m writing it out myself, OK.”

“And we accused Obama of ruling by executive fiat.” <<<Read More>>>

 

Share

Former Justice Steven’s Call For Repeal of 2A Should Be a Call to Repeal Many Amendments

In former Associate Justice John P. Steven’s opinion piece in the New York Times that calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment, he describes the Second Amendment as “a relic of the 18th century.” His belief that the Second Amendment is a relic seems to be based on his narrow interpretation that the only purpose of the Second Amendment was for the formation and useful perpetuation of a “well regulated militia.”

If we, therefore, justify the repealing of the Second Amendment because it is no longer effective and precise today as it was when written, then why stop at the Second Amendment?

For the purest, one would have to ask if the Second Amendment has ever been completely recognized in its simplest form. No other amendment states that the terms of such amendment are qualified as “shall not be infringed.” The dictionary defines “infringe” as “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)” and “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.” And yet, from the very beginning, someone or group of someones has actively sought to “break the terms” and/or “limit or undermine” the Second Amendment.

If we base our modern appraisal of all the other amendments on whether or not they are fitting and suitable in today’s society according to how they are used and abused by Congress and the Courts, then applying Justice Stevens’ way of thinking toward the Second Amendment, perhaps we should consider repealing the First Amendment.

After all, isn’t it a “relic?” Congress seems to operate liberally in making laws that favor or protect one religion over the other. Mostly in today’s America people are seeking a uniform religion with idealism and ideology as its head. We are already beginning to see the call by some for the State to rid the country of at least certain religions in favor of one.

And how much real free speech do we have anymore? Censorship is running rampant in social media as well are other forms of limitation of free speech on display.

The Press gets to exercise their freedom to the extent that they are no longer reliable for truth. While it is ultimately up to the individual to decern truth from fiction, surely I can argue that such a dishonest and dangerous profession does not deserve a constitutional amendment that will protect their lying and cheating ways providing them an avenue toward propaganda and public influence.

It is rare these days that any protest is a peaceable assembly. Because this is now allowed, evidently the right to peaceably assemble is a relic of the 18th Century.

Of what real value does the Fourth Amendment carry? Your protection against “illegal searches and seizures” works well when it conveniently fits the narrative of the law enforcement/government at the moment. But when the government really wants to disregard that right of protection, no piece of paper is worth the ink that is written on it.

As an example that should be at the forefront of all American’s memory was during the Boston Marathon Bombing fraud. We were being told that the perpetrators went down a particular street and authorities were searching door to door. During this period armed thugs went door to door, breaking them down if necessary, without due process or any consideration of the Fourth Amendment. Obviously, by today’s progressive standards, what use is the Fourth Amendment? Shouldn’t it also be repealed, Mr. Stevens?

Amendment VI: Speedy trial? That’s a joke and has been for a long time.

Amendment X: The Corporate States have only those rights and sovereignty granted to it by the Corporate United States.

This effort pointing out the obvious could go on, but I digress.

It would seem that when ideology, and in particular, political ideology, doesn’t care much for certain bills of rights, the call is to repeal them or demand “reasonable” limitations. Perhaps if the Second Amendment hadn’t become so bastardized from its original intent and the people were actually allowed to keep and bear arms without infringement from any other source, there would be no calling out by some of the people to repeal the Second Amendment in an attempt to rid this nation of private ownership of arms. On the same token, if all the other Amendment had not been so muted and muddled, that protection of rights might be worth fighting to save.

Logical conclusions might be drawn when, upon examination, we discover that along with a downward spiraling society, the more the Second Amendment has been “reasonably” destroyed by all, the more of a problem this nation is seeing when it comes to violence and the ease in which a mentally deranged individual (or not) can enter a school property, or other “Gun Free Zone” and slaughter people.

Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different result. I’m not sure what it’s called when you take the same failure and work on increasing the rate of failure hoping for a better outcome.

Thomas Lifson’s article in the American Thinker says that all the events of late about guns and gun violence have resulted in the exposure of the true intentions of the Left. For many decades now, many of us have attempted to expose those seeking to limit or destroy the rights of people, along with our American Heritage, as carrying out acts of incrementalism, i.e. chipping away at those rights one tiny law at a time. Lifson says now we are seeing the true colors and uses the opinion piece of Justice Stevens as proof of the Left’s real intent of a full repeal of the Second Amendment.

I won’t argue with Lifson’s observation. One thing is for certain. The divide in this country grows. Where it will end up is anyone’s guess. One possibility is a terrible one.

The Global Power Structure is in control over all of this. The events we are seeing before us are mostly planned, and being carried out for sinister reasons. Justice Stevens’ call for a repeal of the Second Amendment is part of the plan.

The stage is being set. THEY have been working on it for a long time. It won’t be long before something breaks. What? I don’t know, but for certain something.

Share

Two Totalitarians Debate Guns

It’s what’s wrong with everything!

I’m reading this morning an article in the Bangor Daily News about a doctor and a sportsman debating guns. It became clear that both debaters were totalitarians and showed definite signs of ignorance of facts.

Here’s one example of the what was presented in this so-called debate: “During my time at the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, I was proud of SAM’s support for successful legislation that took guns away from those served with temporary protection orders. At that time only permanent orders gave the judge the option of taking away a person’s guns…

“Unfortunately it is very difficult for the police to get authority to enter that person’s house and make sure the guns are gone.”

This sounds like the talk out of the fascist President Trump’s mouth when he said he would confiscate guns and worry about due process later.

The irony and hypocrisy of the debate appear when the other side of the discussions says: “The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, but rather apply only if they do not deprive others of their rights.”

Both sides appear to want to disrespect a person’s granted and inalienable right to choose how they will protect themselves, one by taking guns and asking questions later (I guess that destroys any sense of innocent until proven guilty, i.e. Due Process) and the other by pretending that it is a just thing to deprive a person of a right so long as it fits conveniently into his narrative.

Ignorance in the debate shows in two ways. One, when one person suggests that gun ownership is all about hunting, and two, when the same person compares as equal a violation of a person’s constitutional and inalienable right to self-defense in the name of public safety to “lead in gasoline, sinkers and paint; mercury thermometers; dioxin in our rivers; asbestos in our ceilings and brakes; and smoking in public places, to name a few.”

I was reading another article posted on this website about social engineering, behavioral engineering for the purpose of belief engineering. In the Comments section was a post made about the Stockholm Syndrome. Defined as “feelings of trust or affection felt in certain cases of kidnapping or hostage-taking by a victim toward a captor,” it is becoming more apparent that our society is loaded with victims (or willing participants) of this psychological phenomenon.

To fully understand how this applies to people, we must understand that “kidnapping or hostage-taking” can be either literal or figurative. There are many ways in which we are kidnapped or taken hostage over our free will. Feelings of affection and/or trust for those whose bent it is to diminish and eliminate our freedoms and individuality is being displayed on many fronts often without the awareness of individuals that they are lobbying for the rope that will eventually hang them.

To undergo debate that involves ceding rights as well as declaring that no right is absolute is eagerly playing into the hands of the hangmen. Denial of the intentions of the executioner is in and of itself a display of Stockholm Syndrome. We see this managest daily with trust for our government and the belief that this government has never, is not, and never will have tyrannical intentions toward placing you in slavery. We are slaves now and deny it. How much more difficult can it be to reach saturation?

Why are we even having this debate? To debate this issue is denying that anyone has an unquestioned right given them by their Creator to protect themselves, their family, and property. Willingness to remove that right is a call to place control over that right in the hands of a centralized authority. This now becomes a government-meted privilege, in which any authority with the power to parcel out rights has the same power to take them away. Our “syndrome” prevents us from that realization.

Is that what this is all about? Or is it just plain ignorance. Maybe it’s both!

 

 

Share

Former Maine IFW Commissioner “DEMANDS” Destruction of Your Inalienable Rights

Repeatedly I have written about the fact that fish and wildlife departments nationwide have gone green and become nothing more than Left-Wing environmentalist that oppose hunting, fishing, and trapping as well as complete predator protection. Going hand in hand with these mental-midget totalitarians is the call to ban guns believing in their progressive empty heads that such an action will somehow, magically stop violent crimes.

If there are any that agree with my assessment of things, they may not realize that this morphing didn’t happen overnight. It did not and here is some proof.

Some may remember former Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Commissioner Bucky Owen. Owen served under Gov. Angus King (oh, that doesn’t surprise you?) in the late 1990s through early 2000s. It’s difficult to wrap your head around the idea that one man in charge of a government agency where once it’s function was fish and game management, which included the North American Model of Wildlife Management (includes hunting), is now “demanding” action to destroy the Second Amendment and your inalienable right to decide how you would prefer to protect yourself and your property.

In a brief Letter to the Editor of a Bangor, Maine newspaper, Owen writes: “…raise the age for gun ownership to 21; require a safety course for all gun owners just as we do for hunters; reduce the legal clip size to that of a traditional hunting rifle; make bump stocks illegal; require universal background checks for the sale of any firearm; outlaw semiautomatic weapons, such as the AR-15; keep weapons away from those who don’t have the mental capacity to use them correctly; and finally; ensure better data gathering and sharing among law enforcement agencies.”

In addition to his misguided empty-headedness on the fact that besides destroying our rights, not one single thing he suggests will do a damned thing to stop gun violence or make schools safer. But the liberal disease knows no deep-end bounds and he shows his real anger, hatred, and ignorance when he writes: “For those who want to play “Rambo,” make these weapons available at a licensed shooting range, and if that isn’t enough, join the Marines, where you can shoot to your heart’s content.”

This person once led the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Difficult to think this man served in a leadership role.

Owen, and many, many, others have encouraged and supported children dictating the social and political structure of this nation. I am reminded of when the Leftists actively sought to bring children into positions of authority sitting on school boards dictating what they wanted their education/brainwashing factories to look like. I ask, how has that turned out. Are we now so stupid that we look to children for our leadership?

With this infectious disease of progressivism/totalitarianism threatening our very existence, is it any wonder our fish and game departments are doomed?

BUT DON’T GO LOOK!

Share