For anyone with an ounce of common sense (which will automatically rule out anyone who supports the impeachment of Donald Trump) this post is going to be nothing but me stating the obvious. But sometimes the obvious needs to be stated for several reasons - first, some folks may not realize some of the points I'm going to bring up, and second, there are times when I just have to get something off my chest.
This is one of those times.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with the impeachment process (which will automatically include anyone who supports the impeachment of Donald Trump), the impeachment process works just like the Grand Jury system for the rest of the nation. If it is suspected that a crime has been committed, the DA will have the police investigate and gather evidence; if the evidence is strong enough to file charges and go to court, then the DA will do just that. If not, the DA convenes a Grand Jury and presents the evidence to the members of the jury for deliberation. If the members believe the evidence supports bringing charges against an individual, then charges are filed, the suspect is arrested, and the next stop is court. The evidence is then presented in a trial in a court of law, and the jury decides the guilt or innocence of the accused based on the evidence presented. If the suspect is found guilty, a sentence is handed down and then carried out. If the suspect is found innocent, that's it. Case closed. If the members of the Grand Jury do not find the evidence supports filing charges or fails to prove that a crime has been committed, then a "no bill" vote is returned and that's that. Case closed.
This is exactly how the impeachment process works; only the terminology is different. The House acts as the Grand Jury, and they're the ones who hear evidence and make the determination whether or not to file charges against the accused. If they find the evidence fails to provide sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and should go to trial, then that's it. Case closed. If the House finds that the evidence supports filing charges, then those charges are filed and at that point the President is deemed to have been "IMPEACHED."
The case then goes to the Senate where the trial is held. If the evidence presented fails to prove that either a crime has been committed and/or that the President is the one who committed it, then the charges are dismissed and that's it. Case closed. If the Senate finds that the evidence supports the charges and that the President committed the offense, then he is removed from office and the Vice President is then sworn in as President. Once the President has been removed from office he/she is then subject to being charged in the civilian court for the same offense; you can't charge a sitting President with a crime while he/she is in office. You have to kick them out first. That's the big thing people don't realize about the impeachment process - the process is only for removing a sitting President from office, not punishing him/her for the offense. The other thing that people don't realize about the process is that the President doesn't have to be convicted in order to be considered "impeached" - if he's brought up on charges and referred to the Senate for trial, then he/she is officially "impeached."
That's how the process is supposed to work, but as the impeachment of Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton proved, the process has one major flaw: the members of both the House and the Senate will completely ignore the evidence presented and will vote along party lines. Clinton was guilty as hell, and the videotape of his deposition proved beyond ANY doubt that he had in fact committed perjury. At that time the House was controlled by the Republicans, so Clinton was impeached. But when the trial was conducted in the Senate, even though the evidence clearly proved beyond a shadow of any reasonable doubt that Clinton was guilty as hell, the Senate members voted along party lines - and since the Demoncrats controlled the Senate, "Slick Willy" got off scot-free.
And should the House be stupid enough (or biased enough) to actually impeach Trump, I'm certain that the exact same thing will happen again since the Republicans now control the Senate. But there's one major difference between now and when Clinton was impeached, and that difference is that Trump hasn't committed a crime. Of course the Demoncrats in the House will totally ignore this and impeach anyway, but when the trial hits the Senate he's gonna walk because the Republicans will vote along party lines and find him "not guilty." Of course the difference is that in this case, that will be true - Trump hasn't committed a crime no matter how much the Demoncrats think he has.
So there are two reasons that any impeachment effort will fail: first and foremost, Trump hasn't committed a crime. And in this particular case, the entire Demoncratic party members in the House are not convinced that he has, and I don't think all of them will vote to impeach. Sure there will be a few RINOs who will vote to impeach, but I'm not so sure that the Demoncrats will have enough votes to impeach. Once the investigation they've started concludes, I really don't think they'll have the evidence to get the votes they need, so it will die right there. The division in the House Demoncrats has been deep and wide over this topic, and it took Nancy Pelosi three years to finally side with the folks who want to impeach. (More on that later this week.) That's not a good indicator for the vote.
The second reason that impeachment will fail is because the Republicans control the Senate, and even though you have a few RINOs there as well who will vote to convict, you also have enough Demoncrats who will vote against it to balance it out. In any event, the vote will be "not guilty" and that will be it - until the Demoncrats dream up something else to try it again, which will take them about 24 hours to do.
I have lost all confidence in both the Congress of the United States in general and the Demoncratic Party in particular. There isn't one single member of Congress in either houses that I'd vote to re-elect; I'm all in favor of voting them ALL out and starting over again with a clean slate. Put members in both houses who have NO ties, NO obligations, NO commitments to anyone of any kind, and then let them do what needs to be done. Our political system has become a sham and a disgrace thanks to the Demoncratic party, and it's high time to change things and fix it.
And the impeachment of Donald Trump is NOT the way to start off.
Deo Vindice
IHC
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Friday, September 6, 2019
The Pros and Cons of Open Carry
If you want to find a topic that will result in some very complex discussions among true 2nd Amendment supporters, the topic of "Constitutional Carry" - also referred to as "Open Carry" - is it.
First off, let me define what I mean by "true" 2nd Amendment supporters, and the definition is very simple: any statement made in support of the 2nd Amendment that includes the words "BUT" or "HOWEVER" means you are NOT a "true" supporter of the Amendment. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just that, and there's ZERO room for those two words or any word like them in any statement ever made by anyone who claims to be a supporter of our right to keep and bear arms. End of story. Period. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention background checks, limits on purchases, age limits, training of any kind, or any of that other nonsense that some "supporters" of the 2nd Amendment will mention AFTER they use the word "BUT" or "HOWEVER" in their statement about how they support the 2nd Amendment. You either support the 2nd Amendment in its entirety or you don't. 'Nuff said.
Now, on to the topic at hand.
For the record, since I am a true supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I absolutely believe in "Constitutional Carry" for the obvious reason - the Amendment says we can. Rather, it doesn't say we CAN'T. And if you don't think the Amendment says that, allow me to refer you back to my second paragraph.
But even though I believe in and support "Constitutional Carry," would I do it? As a practice, no; as an exception due to circumstances, yes. And this, friends and neighbors, leads us into the pros and cons of "Open Carry." Let's start with the pros, shall we?
PROS OF OPEN CARRY
1. The open display of a firearm is an obvious and effective deterrent. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. If a bad guy is looking over people to choose which one he's gonna assault and rob, chances are pretty damned good that he's gonna pass right on by the guy or gal who has a .45 resting in a holster on their hip or hanging under their arm in a shoulder holster. He's going to move on to a victim that can't blow his brains out - in other words, he's gonna go looking for a libtard sheeple who believes that to be unarmed is to be "safe." (And if we're lucky, he'll pick a conservative sheepdog who has his/her CCW permit, is carrying a concealed weapon, and will blow his brains out anyway.)
2. You don't have to worry about your firearm "printing" or being accidentally exposed. While I don't know of any police officer who would charge a CCW holder for displaying a weapon if this happens, it's nice to know that it's no big deal if the wind blows your shirt open and Sally Jane Soccermom sees your pistol, freaks out, and calls the cops. Carry it open on your hip and let Sally Jane freak out at that instead - and trust me, she most certainly will freak out.
3. Quick and easy access to the firearm if needed is assured. Quick and easy access to my firearm when I'm carrying concealed - which is 99% of the time - is my #1 concern when I'm dressing around the weapon. In the summer it's fairly easy since my mode of carry (which I won't reveal) allows me to have nearly instant access to my weapon, but in the winter when it's cold it's another thing entirely. Walking around with your jacket or coat wide open in 20 degree weather is a sure indicator that you're armed, and it's also a good way to catch pneumonia. I prefer jackets and coats with zippers instead of buttons because it's much faster to unzip a jacket than to unbutton it, and if you're in a situation where you need to access your weapon RIGHT NOW, you don't have the time to spare to unbutton your coat.
And now for the other side of the issue - the cons of "Open Carry."
CONS OF OPEN CARRY
1. You are Target #1. If you are unfortunate enough to find yourself in a situation where a bad guy or several bad guys with guns have appeared, once they see you with a pistol on your hip you are instantly going to become Target #1 and are going to be the first person they shoot. And since they'll already have their pistols out and in their hands, chances are pretty good you're gonna die before you have the chance to clear leather. I'd rather not be Target #1 so I'll carry mine concealed, thank you. Besides, I just love a good surprise, don't you?
2. The temptation for someone to try and snatch your weapon out of the holster. There are people, believe it or not, who will think this is a good practical joke to pull on a weapons carrier and will actually try it. You may also run across a deranged or mentally unbalanced (spelled "C-R-A-Z-Y") person who wants to harm both himself and as many people as he can, and will make a grab for your weapon. In both instances anyone who tries this with me will receive two unpleasant surprises: first, on the rare occasions I do open carry (when I'm in North Carolina as South Carolina where I live doesn't have open carry yet) I always use a Stage 2 holster which prevents someone from snatching the weapon out of the holster unless they perform an additional and separate act. (IMHO anyone who carries open and doesn't use this kind of holster is an idiot.) Second, I'm going drive my elbow into your nose as hard as I can, and if you do happen to get the pistol out of the holster I'm then going to draw my backup weapon (yep, I carry one) and shoot you until the slide locks back. Then I'm going to reload and shoot you some more, just to be sure.
3. The weapon is exposed to damage. This is not a good thing, because if the weapon is damaged to the point where it won't fire, then you're doing nothing more than carrying around an expensive paperweight on your hip. While it is most certainly true that this kind of damage is rare, I also don't like the idea of the weapon being exposed to the dings and scratches it wouldn't be exposed to if it were covered even by just a t-shirt. Yeah, I know weapons are eventually going to show signs of wear and tear, but I'd rather delay that as long as I can, thank you. Additionally, most holsters these days are of the "open bottom" type which leaves the muzzle exposed. That exposes the weapon to the chance that something will get shoved up inside the muzzle, especially when you go to sit in your car, and that can be VERY bad if you have to fire the weapon. Firing any weapon with some kind of obstruction in the barrel will cause the weapon to explode in your hand, and that will ruin anyone's day.
And there you have it, the pros and cons of open carry - at least all of them that I can think of, anyway. If you can think of any more please don't hesitate to let me know.
Let me end this blog entry with a funny and true story of something that happened to me last year when I was in North Carolina visiting my family. I went up to the local gas station to fill my car up before I left the next day, and instead of putting on an overshirt to cover my pistol I said "screw it" and went out without it, my Springfield Mod 2 .45 pistol sitting snugly in a Stage 2 polymer holster on my hip. As I was filling up my car a minivan pulled up to the same pump on the other side, and Sally Jane Soccermom got out. It took her about ten seconds to see the pistol on my hip, at which point her eyes got big and she froze. The conversation went like this:
Sally Jane: Is that a gun?
Me: Yes, it is.
Sally Jane: Why are you carrying a gun?
Me: Why are you NOT carrying a gun? (Brief pause while Sally Jane tries to think of what to say next.)
Sally Jane: Why do you think you need to carry a gun?
Me: Why do you think you DON'T need to carry a gun?
At this point you could pretty much see the circuits frying behind her eyes, and she just stood there with her mouth hanging open and a stunned look on her face. I finished filling up my car's gas tank, hung up the hose, said "Have a good day!" and then got in my car and left. She was still standing there as I pulled away.
And yeah, I laughed all the way back to my parent's house.
Deo Vindice
IHC
First off, let me define what I mean by "true" 2nd Amendment supporters, and the definition is very simple: any statement made in support of the 2nd Amendment that includes the words "BUT" or "HOWEVER" means you are NOT a "true" supporter of the Amendment. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just that, and there's ZERO room for those two words or any word like them in any statement ever made by anyone who claims to be a supporter of our right to keep and bear arms. End of story. Period. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention background checks, limits on purchases, age limits, training of any kind, or any of that other nonsense that some "supporters" of the 2nd Amendment will mention AFTER they use the word "BUT" or "HOWEVER" in their statement about how they support the 2nd Amendment. You either support the 2nd Amendment in its entirety or you don't. 'Nuff said.
Now, on to the topic at hand.
For the record, since I am a true supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I absolutely believe in "Constitutional Carry" for the obvious reason - the Amendment says we can. Rather, it doesn't say we CAN'T. And if you don't think the Amendment says that, allow me to refer you back to my second paragraph.
But even though I believe in and support "Constitutional Carry," would I do it? As a practice, no; as an exception due to circumstances, yes. And this, friends and neighbors, leads us into the pros and cons of "Open Carry." Let's start with the pros, shall we?
PROS OF OPEN CARRY
1. The open display of a firearm is an obvious and effective deterrent. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. If a bad guy is looking over people to choose which one he's gonna assault and rob, chances are pretty damned good that he's gonna pass right on by the guy or gal who has a .45 resting in a holster on their hip or hanging under their arm in a shoulder holster. He's going to move on to a victim that can't blow his brains out - in other words, he's gonna go looking for a libtard sheeple who believes that to be unarmed is to be "safe." (And if we're lucky, he'll pick a conservative sheepdog who has his/her CCW permit, is carrying a concealed weapon, and will blow his brains out anyway.)
2. You don't have to worry about your firearm "printing" or being accidentally exposed. While I don't know of any police officer who would charge a CCW holder for displaying a weapon if this happens, it's nice to know that it's no big deal if the wind blows your shirt open and Sally Jane Soccermom sees your pistol, freaks out, and calls the cops. Carry it open on your hip and let Sally Jane freak out at that instead - and trust me, she most certainly will freak out.
3. Quick and easy access to the firearm if needed is assured. Quick and easy access to my firearm when I'm carrying concealed - which is 99% of the time - is my #1 concern when I'm dressing around the weapon. In the summer it's fairly easy since my mode of carry (which I won't reveal) allows me to have nearly instant access to my weapon, but in the winter when it's cold it's another thing entirely. Walking around with your jacket or coat wide open in 20 degree weather is a sure indicator that you're armed, and it's also a good way to catch pneumonia. I prefer jackets and coats with zippers instead of buttons because it's much faster to unzip a jacket than to unbutton it, and if you're in a situation where you need to access your weapon RIGHT NOW, you don't have the time to spare to unbutton your coat.
And now for the other side of the issue - the cons of "Open Carry."
CONS OF OPEN CARRY
1. You are Target #1. If you are unfortunate enough to find yourself in a situation where a bad guy or several bad guys with guns have appeared, once they see you with a pistol on your hip you are instantly going to become Target #1 and are going to be the first person they shoot. And since they'll already have their pistols out and in their hands, chances are pretty good you're gonna die before you have the chance to clear leather. I'd rather not be Target #1 so I'll carry mine concealed, thank you. Besides, I just love a good surprise, don't you?
2. The temptation for someone to try and snatch your weapon out of the holster. There are people, believe it or not, who will think this is a good practical joke to pull on a weapons carrier and will actually try it. You may also run across a deranged or mentally unbalanced (spelled "C-R-A-Z-Y") person who wants to harm both himself and as many people as he can, and will make a grab for your weapon. In both instances anyone who tries this with me will receive two unpleasant surprises: first, on the rare occasions I do open carry (when I'm in North Carolina as South Carolina where I live doesn't have open carry yet) I always use a Stage 2 holster which prevents someone from snatching the weapon out of the holster unless they perform an additional and separate act. (IMHO anyone who carries open and doesn't use this kind of holster is an idiot.) Second, I'm going drive my elbow into your nose as hard as I can, and if you do happen to get the pistol out of the holster I'm then going to draw my backup weapon (yep, I carry one) and shoot you until the slide locks back. Then I'm going to reload and shoot you some more, just to be sure.
3. The weapon is exposed to damage. This is not a good thing, because if the weapon is damaged to the point where it won't fire, then you're doing nothing more than carrying around an expensive paperweight on your hip. While it is most certainly true that this kind of damage is rare, I also don't like the idea of the weapon being exposed to the dings and scratches it wouldn't be exposed to if it were covered even by just a t-shirt. Yeah, I know weapons are eventually going to show signs of wear and tear, but I'd rather delay that as long as I can, thank you. Additionally, most holsters these days are of the "open bottom" type which leaves the muzzle exposed. That exposes the weapon to the chance that something will get shoved up inside the muzzle, especially when you go to sit in your car, and that can be VERY bad if you have to fire the weapon. Firing any weapon with some kind of obstruction in the barrel will cause the weapon to explode in your hand, and that will ruin anyone's day.
And there you have it, the pros and cons of open carry - at least all of them that I can think of, anyway. If you can think of any more please don't hesitate to let me know.
Let me end this blog entry with a funny and true story of something that happened to me last year when I was in North Carolina visiting my family. I went up to the local gas station to fill my car up before I left the next day, and instead of putting on an overshirt to cover my pistol I said "screw it" and went out without it, my Springfield Mod 2 .45 pistol sitting snugly in a Stage 2 polymer holster on my hip. As I was filling up my car a minivan pulled up to the same pump on the other side, and Sally Jane Soccermom got out. It took her about ten seconds to see the pistol on my hip, at which point her eyes got big and she froze. The conversation went like this:
Sally Jane: Is that a gun?
Me: Yes, it is.
Sally Jane: Why are you carrying a gun?
Me: Why are you NOT carrying a gun? (Brief pause while Sally Jane tries to think of what to say next.)
Sally Jane: Why do you think you need to carry a gun?
Me: Why do you think you DON'T need to carry a gun?
At this point you could pretty much see the circuits frying behind her eyes, and she just stood there with her mouth hanging open and a stunned look on her face. I finished filling up my car's gas tank, hung up the hose, said "Have a good day!" and then got in my car and left. She was still standing there as I pulled away.
And yeah, I laughed all the way back to my parent's house.
Deo Vindice
IHC
Thursday, September 5, 2019
The Game Is Afoot
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a vehement - and some would say 'rabid' - supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I believe in the literal translation of the Amendment, meaning that those four little words of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" mean that every single one of the more than 25,000 gun control laws currently on the books in our nation are unconstitutional. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means just one thing, and one thing only. You'll notice that the loonies on the liberal left have never paid any attention at all to those four words, but have instead focused on the word "MILITIA" and the phrase "WELL REGULATED." The reason they chose to pay attention to those is that they can apply their twisted, moronic "logic" to those words and try to convince us that they mean something other than what they truly mean. Only a true libtard would even attempt that, but they do. Every single day.
Every single argument that I hear concerning the 2nd Amendment almost always ends up with the libtard telling us that "No, we're not going to take away your guns." And every single time I hear that blatant lie I want to either puke or punch the asshole saying it right in the mouth. We of the conservative persuasion know that's nothing but a lie, and we know in our hearts that the libtards intend to do just that - take away our guns. And it infuriates us to know that the libtard saying it thinks we're stupid enough to believe it. In other words, they think we're just as stupid as the millions of mindless libtard minions that follow them blindly into the abyss by believing everything they say without demanding proof.
And now, as if you needed any more proof, the libtards have provided just that - undeniable proof of their true intentions. And the statement was made in such a way that there is no way in anyone's mind that you can "backpedal" on this or say that you "misspoke," both of which are nothing more than bullshit libtard terms to try and save themselves when they get caught screwing up or lying to your face.
Demoncratic libtard candidate Beto O'Rourke stated flat-out last week that if he's elected President, he will order a "MANDATORY BUYBACK" of all "ASSAULT WEAPONS." And there's video to prove this, so there's no way that anyone with an ounce of common sense can claim that he didn't say that, or we didn't hear him right, or that he "misspoke."
As Sherlock Holmes would say, "The game is afoot!"
Of course, we on the conservative right have known this all along. There have been several Demoncrats in political office who have said that they would repeal the 2nd Amendment and disarm the American public, with "Billary" Clinton and Dianne Feinstein being just two of them. Chuck Schumer is also of this persuasion, but to my knowledge he hasn't been stupid enough to say anything like this in public or in a forum where he could be quoted and that quote released to the rest of the world. But Beto O'Rourke has proven himself to be a very special kind of stupid.
Let's look at all of the things wrong with what this clown has said, shall we?
The obvious first: the 2nd Amendment. By no stretch of the imagination could a "mandatory buyback" be misconstrued as anything other than a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment as it absolutely does violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any first-year law student or any educated American citizen will tell you that. You'll notice, by the way, that NONE of the Demoncratic candidates have jumped on this particular bandwagon, because they all remember the advice given to NObama when he was running and again after being elected. That advice was to "stay away from the 2nd Amendment" because all of his advisors knew that if you wanted one topic that would unite the conservatives into a solid, unbeatable force aligned against an opponent, the 2nd Amendment was it. And they all knew that the power of both the NRA and the people in our nation who believe in the 2nd Amendment was absolutely unbeatable, so they stay away from this topic like the plaque.
Except for Beto, of course. This asshat is either too naive or too stupid to realize that any sitting President does NOT have the power to rescind any part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and any executive order that any President may issue which does that or which violates the Constitution will be quickly shut down by the courts.
Now for the "almost as obvious" as the first one. In order for this "mandatory buyback" to happen, first you have to WIN THE ELECTION. But even before that, you have to WIN THE DEMONCRATIC NOMINATION, and I just don't see good ol' Beto doing that. The Demoncrats will never elect someone who blatantly says something like this during his campaign for the reason I gave above - they know that the conservative base is unbeatable when united behind this cause, and they don't want to go up against us because they know they'll lose. They'd rather elect a candidate who they know won't talk about it but will act on it once he/she's in office. (The name "Schumer" comes to mind, but he's smart enough not to run.)
Next is the fact that it literally takes an act of Congress to repeal a Constitutional amendment. Actually, it takes a lot more than that. From the web site "Constitution Daily:"
"The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it."
And I just don't see this happening. To date, in the history of our country there have been approximately 11,699 Constitutional amendments submitted for approval, but only ONE has actually been passed, that being the repeal of the 18th Amendment which ended Prohibition.(1)
But the main point in all of this is that a Demoncratic candidate for President of the United States has stated publicly that he will in fact violate both the Constitution of the United States and the Oath of Office of President of the United States by disarming the American public.
And the really scary thing is that there's no public outcry over what he said, and this alarms me. There's no outcry for one of two reasons: the rest of the Demoncratic world either knows he's an idiot with no chance of getting elected and/or they're staying away from the topic because it's poison, or the Republicans don't take him seriously for the reasons just listed.
I have learned never to underestimate anything my opponent says, and I take everything he/she says very seriously - especially when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. As long as the Demoncrats think that disarming us will end "gun violence" (a term I utterly despise and am loathe to use) and keep us safe, I will take everything they say about this topic very seriously indeed.
And so should you. The Founding Fathers weren't just a bunch of farmers who got together and said, "Hey, guys, let's draft a Constitution and list the rights that we have just by being alive, and we'll put them in any old order as we think of them!" No, our Founding Fathers were very well-educated men, most of whom were educated in Europe at some of the more prestigious colleges and universities of their time. Many of them were lawyers as well. So no, they didn't just throw together the Bill of Rights in any old order; they listed the Amendments in order of importance, with the freedom to criticize your government without getting locked up being at the top of the list. But knowing that the British would come lock you up anyway, they next listed the right to keep and bear arms to defend yourselves. After all, the British proved how important this right was and how much of a threat it was when they tried to seize the armories in Williamsburg and Concord, the latter being the skirmish that led to the initiation of armed conflict and has been referred to as the "Shot heard 'round the world."
Beto O'Rourke and the entire Demoncratic party are just as hell-bent on disarming us as the British were, and for the same reason: once we're disarmed we can be controlled, and the Demoncrats will be free to do whatever the hell they wish, up to and including locking up anyone who dares voice an opinion that is contrary to what they say. Of course they're trying to disguise this as an attempt to "keep us safe," but only a true moron would believe that disarming yourself in the face of a violent threat will keep you safe.
The fight is real, and the fight is here. The fight is NOW. If you value your Constitutional rights - all of them, because once the 2nd Amendment is gone there's nothing to stop the rest from falling - and you're NOT a member of the National Rifle Association, NOW IS THE TIME TO JOIN. We as Americans face a very real and very serious threat to both our nation and our personal rights and liberties, and the only way to stop this threat is to fight it directly with the NRA leading the way. This organization is the one organization that the political left fears, because they realize just how powerful it is. And it's powerful because of it's members, so the more members it has the more powerful it becomes and the better it can defend our rights.
So what are you waiting for? Beto O'Rourke or someone worse to get elected? By that time it'll be too late.
Don't wait. Join today. Join NOW.
Deo Vindice
IHC
(1) "Constitution Daily" @ constitution.org
Every single argument that I hear concerning the 2nd Amendment almost always ends up with the libtard telling us that "No, we're not going to take away your guns." And every single time I hear that blatant lie I want to either puke or punch the asshole saying it right in the mouth. We of the conservative persuasion know that's nothing but a lie, and we know in our hearts that the libtards intend to do just that - take away our guns. And it infuriates us to know that the libtard saying it thinks we're stupid enough to believe it. In other words, they think we're just as stupid as the millions of mindless libtard minions that follow them blindly into the abyss by believing everything they say without demanding proof.
And now, as if you needed any more proof, the libtards have provided just that - undeniable proof of their true intentions. And the statement was made in such a way that there is no way in anyone's mind that you can "backpedal" on this or say that you "misspoke," both of which are nothing more than bullshit libtard terms to try and save themselves when they get caught screwing up or lying to your face.
Demoncratic libtard candidate Beto O'Rourke stated flat-out last week that if he's elected President, he will order a "MANDATORY BUYBACK" of all "ASSAULT WEAPONS." And there's video to prove this, so there's no way that anyone with an ounce of common sense can claim that he didn't say that, or we didn't hear him right, or that he "misspoke."
As Sherlock Holmes would say, "The game is afoot!"
Of course, we on the conservative right have known this all along. There have been several Demoncrats in political office who have said that they would repeal the 2nd Amendment and disarm the American public, with "Billary" Clinton and Dianne Feinstein being just two of them. Chuck Schumer is also of this persuasion, but to my knowledge he hasn't been stupid enough to say anything like this in public or in a forum where he could be quoted and that quote released to the rest of the world. But Beto O'Rourke has proven himself to be a very special kind of stupid.
Let's look at all of the things wrong with what this clown has said, shall we?
The obvious first: the 2nd Amendment. By no stretch of the imagination could a "mandatory buyback" be misconstrued as anything other than a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment as it absolutely does violate the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any first-year law student or any educated American citizen will tell you that. You'll notice, by the way, that NONE of the Demoncratic candidates have jumped on this particular bandwagon, because they all remember the advice given to NObama when he was running and again after being elected. That advice was to "stay away from the 2nd Amendment" because all of his advisors knew that if you wanted one topic that would unite the conservatives into a solid, unbeatable force aligned against an opponent, the 2nd Amendment was it. And they all knew that the power of both the NRA and the people in our nation who believe in the 2nd Amendment was absolutely unbeatable, so they stay away from this topic like the plaque.
Except for Beto, of course. This asshat is either too naive or too stupid to realize that any sitting President does NOT have the power to rescind any part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and any executive order that any President may issue which does that or which violates the Constitution will be quickly shut down by the courts.
Now for the "almost as obvious" as the first one. In order for this "mandatory buyback" to happen, first you have to WIN THE ELECTION. But even before that, you have to WIN THE DEMONCRATIC NOMINATION, and I just don't see good ol' Beto doing that. The Demoncrats will never elect someone who blatantly says something like this during his campaign for the reason I gave above - they know that the conservative base is unbeatable when united behind this cause, and they don't want to go up against us because they know they'll lose. They'd rather elect a candidate who they know won't talk about it but will act on it once he/she's in office. (The name "Schumer" comes to mind, but he's smart enough not to run.)
Next is the fact that it literally takes an act of Congress to repeal a Constitutional amendment. Actually, it takes a lot more than that. From the web site "Constitution Daily:"
"The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it."
And I just don't see this happening. To date, in the history of our country there have been approximately 11,699 Constitutional amendments submitted for approval, but only ONE has actually been passed, that being the repeal of the 18th Amendment which ended Prohibition.(1)
But the main point in all of this is that a Demoncratic candidate for President of the United States has stated publicly that he will in fact violate both the Constitution of the United States and the Oath of Office of President of the United States by disarming the American public.
And the really scary thing is that there's no public outcry over what he said, and this alarms me. There's no outcry for one of two reasons: the rest of the Demoncratic world either knows he's an idiot with no chance of getting elected and/or they're staying away from the topic because it's poison, or the Republicans don't take him seriously for the reasons just listed.
I have learned never to underestimate anything my opponent says, and I take everything he/she says very seriously - especially when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. As long as the Demoncrats think that disarming us will end "gun violence" (a term I utterly despise and am loathe to use) and keep us safe, I will take everything they say about this topic very seriously indeed.
And so should you. The Founding Fathers weren't just a bunch of farmers who got together and said, "Hey, guys, let's draft a Constitution and list the rights that we have just by being alive, and we'll put them in any old order as we think of them!" No, our Founding Fathers were very well-educated men, most of whom were educated in Europe at some of the more prestigious colleges and universities of their time. Many of them were lawyers as well. So no, they didn't just throw together the Bill of Rights in any old order; they listed the Amendments in order of importance, with the freedom to criticize your government without getting locked up being at the top of the list. But knowing that the British would come lock you up anyway, they next listed the right to keep and bear arms to defend yourselves. After all, the British proved how important this right was and how much of a threat it was when they tried to seize the armories in Williamsburg and Concord, the latter being the skirmish that led to the initiation of armed conflict and has been referred to as the "Shot heard 'round the world."
Beto O'Rourke and the entire Demoncratic party are just as hell-bent on disarming us as the British were, and for the same reason: once we're disarmed we can be controlled, and the Demoncrats will be free to do whatever the hell they wish, up to and including locking up anyone who dares voice an opinion that is contrary to what they say. Of course they're trying to disguise this as an attempt to "keep us safe," but only a true moron would believe that disarming yourself in the face of a violent threat will keep you safe.
The fight is real, and the fight is here. The fight is NOW. If you value your Constitutional rights - all of them, because once the 2nd Amendment is gone there's nothing to stop the rest from falling - and you're NOT a member of the National Rifle Association, NOW IS THE TIME TO JOIN. We as Americans face a very real and very serious threat to both our nation and our personal rights and liberties, and the only way to stop this threat is to fight it directly with the NRA leading the way. This organization is the one organization that the political left fears, because they realize just how powerful it is. And it's powerful because of it's members, so the more members it has the more powerful it becomes and the better it can defend our rights.
So what are you waiting for? Beto O'Rourke or someone worse to get elected? By that time it'll be too late.
Don't wait. Join today. Join NOW.
Deo Vindice
IHC
(1) "Constitution Daily" @ constitution.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)