Misunderstanding the 2nd Amendment

The founding fathers of the United States of America didn't fight a long and bloody war with the mighty British Empire so that we are all guaranteed the right to own a hunting rifle. That's just not it at all.

It was so that the citizenry, that's you and me, had a right to bear the same arms that could be brought to bear against us should the government determine that it should march against the people in order to subjugate them to their might.

As someone once put it, the people who started our government and framed the U.S. Constitution and it's linchpin, the Bill of Rights, were not powder-wigged fools. They foresaw that someday in the future that there could possibly be a time where people of the nation would need to use such arms to either defend themselves or to drive out those who may wish to take over the government either from within or without. And to do that, a hunting rifle just isn't going to cut it.

The Teeth in the Bill of Rights

Does anybody believe that any of the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights would be worth a hill of beans without the 2nd Amendment?

Freedom of Speech? The United States is the only country in the world where the right of the people to speak and say what they want, including talking down the President and it's ministers, that has written an absolute guarantee to it's people. We see the difference in this way of thinking all over the world. Canada doesn't guarantee it's citizens a right to free speech, nor France or Great Britain, not Australia or Sweden. Great Britain doesn't even have a written constitution. I guess your rights there are whatever Parliament says they are. No right to privacy, no right to free speech.

There is no equivalent anywhere in the world to our 1st Amendment. Some say it's our weakness but they'd be wrong. Like what you hear or hate it, people have a right to say it. And if, say, the government were to attempt to smash the people's right to protest and speak out, what mechanism could there be to impress upon government that the people wish to maintain this freedom?

That's where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

So perhaps one could say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the 1st.

How about the 3rd Amendment? Could soldiers possibly be taking over homes in modern times? Would you call that impossible? Well it is since it is specifically outlawed in the 3rd Amendment. So, say, if troops were deployed to a disaster area here in the U.S. and needed a place to stay and told you that they were staying and you had to go...well, that's where the 2nd Amendment comes in.

How about something like China's new "President" for life? I like how our government likes to refer to Dictators of counties we trade heavily with as "President". But take Mr. Xi Jinping and his desire never to leave office. If this happened in the United States, what do you suppose might happen?

China has no such right of the citizen to own a fire arm and it shows.

The 2nd Amendment upholds the entire Bill of Rights. It is a complete and most perfect document made strong by the right of the people to bear arms. It is unique to the world and because it is so, the 2nd Amendment is the most maligned and attacked amendment. It just goes to prove the adage that for the American citizen, freedom is fought for every day. And so we fight on for those who don't understand the full meaning of why it's there.

Lexington, Massachusetts

If anybody bothers to look at my profile picture, you'll see that I'm standing on the bridge at Lexington, MA. This is the spot where our first citizens stood and traded fire with the troops of the British Empire. No small feat this. This was the day of the "Shot Heard Around the World" and where later in the day practically all the armed citizen militia answered the call and the British, by the end of the day, got their asses shot off.

Why did the British come out of their Boston stronghold that day? What was their purpose? To get the guns. They knew rifles and gunpowder were being stored in Lexington. That's what they came for and there is a larger than you are lead to believe group of people in this country that thinks that the next entitled government entity will try the same thing if they aren't paying attention. That's just the way has been ever since that day, April 18, 1775. It's going to take more than the latest media parade to knock them off of this belief.

Gun Sales will Rise

Anyone who thinks that these school shootings has reduced by one iota the public's desire to defend themselves with a firearm is living under a mistaken belief system. People will again flock to buy a gun based upon the media's inflammatory rhetoric which has very much sought to exploit the tragedy in the hopes of getting out in front of their anti-gun campaign before the real story of the failure of law enforcement, both local and federal, to act to stop a very preventable shooting.

What's an Adult? 

Even if I lived in my mother's basement playing video games at the age of 18, I'm still considered an adult, although not quite a responsible one. But even so, the law says that at the age of 18 I can be tried as an adult in the court of law and sign binding contracts.

Raising the age of buying a semi-automatic rifle or weapon, and they're ALL semi-automatic these days, to 21 represents a clear infringement on the rights of an adult to own a firearm and will not stand. They can pass the law but it won't hold up in court. You can carry a fully automatic weapon in Afghanistan for the U.S. government but you can't carry a semi-automatic when you get back? That's bullshit.

Bill Clinton Tried it

The Clinton Administration passed the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" back in 1994 which only served to drive ownership of such labeled weapons underground. Who knew how many were out there. The state of California imposed an assault weapons registry which nobody paid any attention to. So that's your precedent.

Rights Under Assault

Our rights are violated daily. The National Security Agency, the NSA, has been outed as spying on U.S. citizens in violation of the 4th Amendment that guarantees protections from unlawful search and seizures of property. The 1st Amendment is under assault from the Political Left for which has been mounting a sustained campaign against what kind of speech is actually protected, branding speech as "racist" or "hateful" or partitioning speech with the bogus "Free Speech Zones" when, of course, all speech is free anywhere you want to speak it. The U.S. court system is constantly working on the 5th Amendment going so far as punishing people for failure to incriminate themselves.

We have giant U.S. corporations making deals with foreign Dictators while simultaneously voluntarily allowing our own government free access to their communications systems for "monitoring" of U.S. citizens. There is no privacy any more and the collusion between multi-national corporations and government to know everything about everybody should be a major cause of concern for every thinking American.

And you think people are going to just give up the right to own a gun?
  

Give Teachers Right to Carry

Nikolas Cruz, the boy who killed 17 people at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, FL, whom everyone who knows him stated is mentally ill, seems to have never been clinically diagnosed as such and therefore would never have shown up on a “do not sell a gun to this person” list.

In order to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, they first have to be identified and certified. Given the shameful and woeful state of public mental health facilities in the United States since the 1980s, expecting this to happen is an unrealistic expectation. Bringing back these facilities would, in my opinion, be public money well spent but even if that were to come about, it will take decades to re-establish such facilities.

As we now know, with so many people who were positions to do something who didn't, it makes no sense to pass more laws since people didn't pay any attention to the one's already in place. A law isn't going to protect you.

And as we have seen, neither are the police. 

The glaring fact of the matter is that Nikolas Cruz was perfectly legal to buy a semi-automatic rifle anywhere in the state of Florida. 

And people think this is a gun issue.

School Security Guard

Mr. Aaron Feis, the MSDHS football coach who selflessly made the ultimate sacrifice and took the bullets intended for his students, was also referred to as the school's security guard. It is evident that he was an “unarmed” security guard.  

If Mr. Feis was armed and trained to use a firearm, this situation MAY have played out differently. I don’t know how much warning Aaron Feis had about the location of Nikolas Cruz but instead of only being able to resort to throwing his body in front of the students, he could have also been ready to take down an armed student with his own firearm. 

This scenario does raise more questions than it answers like if Cruz knew that Feis was armed and if that in itself did not deter him, he could have just made it a point to seek him out and shoot him first and then continue with his shooting spree. We will never know. 

What it Will Take

When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

If there were people who were armed, either a school teacher or paid detail or guard, would this still have happened like it did? If he knew that there were armed people at the school, would Nikolas Cruz still have gone in?

So say Aaron Feis, armed and aware of Mr. Cruz coming down the hallway, shoots him and ends the conflict right there?

Or he doesn't even have to hit him, just keep Cruz at bay until help arrived.The headlines change: “Brave Teacher Halts Student Killer”. There’s no predicting such a result but we know what did happen. It’s now history.

As we have seen over and over again that our law enforcement forces cannot stop an armed assault on a soft target like a school, a bike path, a public mall or any place that people gather.

Leftists Don't Want to Hear it

The Young Leftists who are now campaigning to outlaw guns don't want to hear an alternative to taking away the guaranteed right of gun ownership. Perhaps due to their standard, sub-standard public school education, they know nothing and care nothing about the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights, a delicately balanced document that guarantees the rights they enjoy in this country and to say anything they want. And the linchpin in the Bill of Rights is the 2nd Amendment, without which none of the other amendments, including the 1st, are worth a penny.

I’m so sorry these bright young kids with an expectation of safety have had to take in a harsh reality of life so soon and seeing people they know gunned down and killed. But there was plenty that could have been done in their community to have at least given them a chance at avoiding such a catastrophe and was not done.

We can go on about passing more laws prohibiting access to guns but how will that stop a person without an arrest record or mental illness diagnosis? They're going to clear a background check. The information has to be IN the computer for it to be effective. 

The Leftists cling to a failed ideology; That guns are bad and that they should just go away. "Just ban them" they say. Like they are going to magically go away if people aren't allowed to have them. The Muslim Terrorists have guns and they aren't supposed to either. Go tell them they aren't allowed to have them and find out what they have to say about that. 

Blaming Gun Manufactures 

This door swings both way. You want to hold gun manufactures "accountable" when someone abuses one of their weapons but make no mention when someone uses a similar weapon to successfully defend themselves and other. That's right, people can and do defend themselves in this country way more often than you hear about. There's a reason for that. The media won't champion such a thing since it works against their anti-gun narrative.

Devin Kelley, the guy who shot up the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Spring, TX was stopped by an armed citizen. 

Allow Teachers to Carry

I think you will get more teachers volunteering to carry a gun today than you would have last month. Fighting back is loads better than only being able to use your body as a shield. Anybody with a brain is going to realize that there's no future in that.

Schools are the ultimate soft target and until we change that, scenes like Columbine and Stoneman Douglas are likely to continue. Guns aren't going away so the wisest choice is to be prepared.

So be prepared. 

Soros Outspent Russia in 2016 Election

It doesn't look like Russia put up a whole lot of money in their attempts to "overthrow" the 2016 presidential elections.

Taking out ads of Facebook? Hell, any startup marketing group does that. Did they also put up posters at the local supermarkets and store windows downtown? They could have got one of those auto-dial phone machines that ring you up and plays a political message. They could've gotten that pretty cheap too.

But it's another thing entirely to throw millions of dollars at leftist political action groups and well known radical immigrant organizations. Soros money paid for real television and radio advertising during the campaign. And then there is the expense of keeping a professional mob of anarchists on the payroll. They can eat you out of house and home.

But old baggy-eyed Soros has the money, the time and the desire so it's no big deal to him. His aim was, as it is today, to undermine our system of government because it seems he makes the most money out of chaos and fear. What can you say, it seems to pay real well.

So why aren't we hearing about Soros "meddling" in the 2016 presidential election? Or anybody else who threw heaping wads o' cash around during the election?

Oh yeah, that's right, George Soro's money and efforts were going towards making Hillary Clinton president. Well THAT certainly can't be a crime.

And I almost forgot about the Koch brothers who also spent mightily for the same purpose of stopping that scourge of the status quo in American government, now president, Donald Trump.

So how did all this work out for them?

They got BUPKISS, didn't they, for all the Kajillions of dollars laid out during the run up to the 2016 election. And it didn't amount to a hill of beans for Hillary even though the fix was in to screw Brother Bernie for the Democratic nomination. No collusion there either. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

No, the only crime one can commit, you, me, Russia etc is to be found backing Donald J. Trump for president. That has proven to be a brazen act worthy of a special investigator. Isn't one of the "indictments" related to Russian "operatives" talking down Hillary during the campaign?

Who wasn't doing that?

How absurd this has all become. Anyone has a right to buy an ad on a media site. It's not a crime to back a candidate or to slander another, even if Donald Trump told them to do it. Hillary told Debbie Wasserman-Shultz to screw Bernie Sanders. Does that count? Bill Clinton told then U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch that she could stay on as AG under a Hillary Clinton presidency as long as she doesn't get too nosey. Does THAT count? How about all the money the Chinese government gave to Bill Clinton in 1996? Or his big dollar "lecture tour" in Russia?

Never mind, why do I even bother?

All these efforts, like Soros, the Kochs, the Russians, were all but faint cries in the vast howling windstorm of American Presidential Politics. Nobody cared who was doing what since the lines were drawn way earlier than Media or Money could alter.

All the candidates are in the public domain and enjoy no protections. Any organization, any company and any individual can say anything they want about them. It's our highest law.

So can't we end this soon?

Mueller Trying to Save Face

Well, he has to indict SOMEBODY. He's got nothing or it would have been leaked by now.

So, lacking evidence, Mr. Mueller does what special investigators who have burned through millions of taxpayer dollars have done in the past when they're looking to back their way out of an unwinnable situation: Indict a bunch of people who he can't get at, never interviewed and who most likely never set foot in this country to date. How daring! How bold! How time worn!

It would be great fun if some of these Russian dudes decided to come to the U.S. to contest the charges. What would Mueller do then? How can buying an ad be a crime? They could just hold up a picture of George Soros at the trial and walk out of court free men.

Or maybe Mueller will decide to grant these Russian defendants amnesty if they tell all they know about their relationship with Donald Trump. That should take 2 minutes.

The Real Shame

The real sad part of this whole affair is that a chance of a thaw in U.S./Russian relations has been set back yet again, this time by this media induced Russian conspiracy theory that was cooked up solely to throw shade on a Trump presidency.

What a total waste.

Mueller Threatens U.S. Democracy

Special Council Robert Mueller will not be ending Donald Trump's presidency. This much is clear and it has been clear from the beginning. All the bizarre hopes and dreams of the one-party system of government we have had in place since perhaps FDR are not going to be fulfilled by this little man with the big serious face and dark suit. They won't be and they can't be.

If Mr. Mueller is not careful, he will bring about a bigger result should he act on the urges of his deep state constituents. He could bring civil chaos with the stroke of a pen.

But he won't.

It has been becoming quite clear what Mueller's real purpose is: To keep the air of illegitimacy and impropriety hanging over the Trump government for at least two years and at the most all four. He isn't going to go away just because there is no evidence. He doesn't even need evidence to issue an indictment of the President. He could just issue one and the Democratic Party and their Leftist Media cohorts will do the rest.

But should such a scenario actually happen, it will probably mean the end of the Republic.

What would the purpose of having a vote serve if the opposition can appoint a "Special Council" and remove the elected candidate? Do you think the people who voted for that candidate are just going to sit back and do nothing should that happen? Who elected Robert Mueller? What power does he really have?

Just the power of intimidation and presence. If he goes any further than walking around looking stern, he risks going down in history as the man who destroyed our current system of Democracy and perhaps to have incited Civil War.

Don't say "It can't happen here." because it already did.

Donald Trump is the first person to be elected in my lifetime that has established for me once and for all that our lousy system of government actually WORKS. At least once in a while. He was elected at a time where people whom many of us DIDN'T AGREE WITH have been running the country for the last 16 years (at least). Now it has become evident that the people who were fed up with the previous two regimes grew to a point where they could exert their desires politically and because of their heartfelt and strenuous efforts, their chosen candidate WON THE ELECTION.

Under the 24 hour a day non-stop Anti-Trump media bombardment leading up the the 2016 election, this is a BIG DEAL. Now the Karmic shoe is on the other foot and so the rules have to be changed?

Not going to happen. Not without unpleasant implications.

Donald Trump is the people's champion. The last guy wasn't. He was championing for some other people but not the American working, taxpaying, people who play by the rules type of people who voted for Donald Trump. They see that Mueller is a Partisan hack. They believe, like I believe, that the FBI surveilled the Trump presidential campaign headquarters to serve the cause of Hillary Clinton.

How do I know? Because the NSA and FBI are surveilling EVERYBODY without cause or warrant. How much more effort would it take to turn the speakers up on the phones of Trump's staff? Not much.

And after all, it was all for Hillary. The end justifies the means for the Marxist Left.

And who has trusted the FBI ever? Oh, they were great back in the dust bowl days shooting up grainy black and white Depression era bank robbers but since it was discovered that former FBI head J. Edgar Hoover had a folder on everybody from Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy to lowly Boston talk radio loudmouth Howie Carr, people knew the fix was in.

And the fix is in. Mueller is tainted by his association with that lying weasel James Comey and by the revelation that his henchmen conspired to collude against now President Trump to bring down his presidency. And unlike Mueller's Russia investigation, this we do have evidence of. We also know how the FBI avoided even an investigation of Hillary Clinton's correspondences outside the rules and the eyes of her government responsibilities while Secretary of State. The FBI is a house that must be cleansed.

Every attempt to muddy the waters of these revelations does them no good. NOBODY believes them. Spin the facts, bring in NPR, CNN and WBZ with more talk and memos, have the Media 5th Column trumpet the alternative reality, so what?

NOBODY believes them!

They have been caught by the American voter. There is no putting that genie back in the bottle.

Mueller is an embarrassment and the longer he hangs out there the bigger an embarrassment he'll be to the Democrats going into the 2018 elections. They look like they are trying to play a pair of Twos in a high-stakes poker game. They're bluffing and they know they've got nothing.

And we know they've got nothing too.

So go ahead Mr. Mueller, issue an indictment of President Trump. I'm calling your bluff because that's what you are, a Status Quo, Anti-Democracy, Anti-Trump, Anti-American, Partisan figment of BULLSHIT.

You go ahead and pull something and we'll all just see what happens next you big-faced little Leftist Twerp!

Bring it.