I Would Like to Ask Kamala One Question

It should be in front of the whole world so that one and all could see her reply. The rule would be that she should have to reply without repeating my question back to me. Finally, there would be backing out. Once I ask my short and concise question, she would need to reply in two minutes or less.

It would not be asking much. Most true experts on the subject could provide a good accurate answer in twenty, maybe twenty-five seconds. She would not be allowed to cackle. She would be required to answer accurately and seriously.

She wants to outlaw assault weapons. I wonder if she could provide a real and concise description of an assault weapon. I mean, if we don’t get a definition from her, it would make it very easy for her to keep changing the meaning.

Does it have to be a rifle or does it include slings, as David used on Goliath. Is it only semi-automatic or does it include bolt and lever action. Does it mean only weapons with scopes. If I use a kitchen knife to assault someone, would that make all kitchen knives illegal thereafter.

The fact of the matter is, assault weapon is a very broad term. Truly the first weapon used in an assault was when Cain killed Able. If a person has the proper training, he can kill with his bear hands. It makes it possible to turn a very wide variety of things into assault weapons. It gives the prosecutor a very wide range for prosecuting.

Indeed, it is so wide of a meaning that the Supreme Court could and should disallow any such law because it is so broad. If she really wants to outlaw a gun, she should call it a gun, not an assault weapon. If she wants to outlaw semi-automatics, then she should specify semi-automatics. If she wants to outlaw AR-15s, then she should use the term AR-15s.

While we are on the subject, she said she has a gun. Has she been trained how to use and not use it? Has she been through any safety courses? Does she know not to shoot at someone until she is sure he is a threat? Has she practiced with it to the point of being able to hit what she aiming at.

The fact of the matter is, a gun in the hands of an untrained person is at least as dangerous as just about any weapon, assault or not. I’m guessing about 80% of the peace officers in this country can tell her that from firsthand experience. I have no reference. Just a guess.

Oddly, Some People Believe It

It’s the guns

It’s the guns

It’s the guns

We have to eliminate all guns every time someone gets shot.

It’s the target. it’s the target as soon as they start shooting at Pres. Trump.

Strange as that might seem, as crazy as that sounds, some people believe that line of reasoning, which is promoted by the dems.

It would seem, according to the dems, it is a matter of just whom the target might be. My guess is that if someone started shooting at me, it would be my fault as well.

Was the thought of shooting at Trump originated with the dems? I guess not. On the other hand, much of what they say, encourages it. There have been physical assaults on many republicans and the dems have made it clear it is okay with them, though they might pretend otherwise. They even encourage it in their speeches. Remember, Sen. Rand Paul was assaulted by his neighbor while mowing his lawn and again while walking along the the roads of D.C. Remember those that would have assaulted the Supreme Court justices if they could have. This, of course, while the Justice Department refused them protection. I guess the justices, too are at fault for the attempted assaults on them.

It’s not because of a warped since of justice, though as it would seem so. It just is that some will believe anything the dems say. After all, the dems, the media, and the social media have all spread the word, the orange man is Hitler. How much better would be the world without Hitler. So, by way of twisted reasoning, the dems are saying the world would be better off without the orange man. Hence, by the twisted logic, if someone killed Trump, the would would be far better off. Those that have tried might even be looking at themselves as heroes. On the other hand, there are dems that would agree with them,

Don’t Point

I can remember, believe it or not, when I was 4, being told, “Don’t point. It’s not polite.”

Really, I am not writing this to brag about my memory. The thing is I was not much older when I was taught not to point a gun.

I have written before about gun safety and pointing guns. I should not have to repeat it. I should not have to say anything about it at all. Once a month, it should be repeated on TV. It cannot be repeated too much.

My three safety rules on guns:

  1. Assume all guns are loaded until proven otherwise
  2. Assume all guns are loaded, period.
  3. Do not point a gun at anyone you do not intend to shoot.

Since I posted those three rules last, I’ve added two more. First, make sure there is no one behind anyone you are aiming at. You might miss and hit the one beyond your target. Moreover, the bullet can go through you target and hit the one behind. Actually, it is something of an extension of rule 3. Finally, don’t shoot unless you are in danger. Do not shoot to protect someone else unless you are ready to go to prison for it. I guess it is sort of that way if you are in danger. You might still end up in jail but, at least you’ll still be alive.

It is a fact, if you shoot someone or if you shoot at someone and you can’t come up with a good reason, there is a good probability that you will go to jail.

As a side note: even if you are completely justified, it is something that will stay with you the rest of your life.

You might wonder why I brought up the subject. That actor is again saying it was an accident. He is pleading not-guilty because he didn’t pull the trigger. It doesn’t matter. He pointed the gun at the woman. Moreover, though he was told the gun was safe, he never checked it. (Rule 1)

I believe he should be convicted and go to prison. He’ll be lucky it will be just 18 months. Fact is, even if the gun never went off, he should still get a good hand slap for pointing the gun at the woman.

I did find it interesting that the defense attorney said that he was handed a prop gun. If I were the persecuting attorney, if appropriate, I would have objected. The gun he was handed was not a prop. it was a real gun with at least one real live bullet in it. The fact that it was used as a prop did not change that.

Learning the Obvious & the Strange

I have a bad memory. Sometimes I learn things and I haven’t a clue where I learn them. Nonetheless, I now know that the primary purpose of a holster is to guard the trigger.

Now how about that. All these years, I thought it was to hold the gun. It does help to explain something I learned a while ago. While a gun, short or long, is being carried in an auto, it must be holstered. Now I understand the reason for the law.

It makes sense. I should have onown beforehand. It is obvious. I write this in the possibility it just might help others. I mean, just because something is obvious, doesn’t mean we all know and understand it.

Then, while researching the holster thing, I found something that floored me. That means, it confused me. It seems that in most, if not all states, it is against the law to install compartments in autos to hide guns in.

Let me explain. In this area, there’s a problem with guns being stolen from autos. You might say it’s an epidemic. Virtually, every day, they say something on the news about it.

So, silly me, I start thinking about building a place in my car to hide my gun. You know, so I can safely leave my weapon in my car while I go into a place where it is unwise to bring it.

You have no idea how much thought I put into it. I even considered putting some money into it. Now, I’m thinking that’s strange. They want me to make sure my weapon is secure in my car before I enter, let’s say, a bank, but they will not let me put it in a constructed concealed compartment.

It doesn’t stop there. This also applies to RVs, boats, yachts and I would guess horse drawn carriages.

To some degree, I understand. It is a bad thing to let criminals hide things, including drugs, in vehicles and haul them anywhere and everywhere. The hitch is, they do that anyway. Frequently, they are caught and they still do it. I suspect it doesn’t slow them down.

At any rate. Maybe I have saved others the embarrassment of others finding out about the law the hard way.

Now. Just how do I keep the bad guys from stealing my weapon whilst I am in a restaurant. Guess I will need to resort to the drive throughs.

Simple Math

Take away all legal guns; only illegal guns left.

Make it illegal to own guns; only the criminals will have them.

Stop and think about for a while. Do you really want to live in a town where only the criminals carry guns. You just might prefer a different town, different state, or maybe a different country.

Then again, I might be wrong. If you’re a criminal type, you just might like it to know your victim doesn’t have a way of defending him/herself.

Sometimes, the person who wants to disarm the town is the criminal’s best comrade.

Two Undeniable Facts About Crime and Guns

I have said it before, but it bears repeating.

  1. Lock up all the guns and there will still be crime, some of those committing those crimes will still use guns. Some will be stolen, some smuggled in across a very porous border, and some will be homemade.
  2. Lock of most of the criminals, much of the crime will cease.

Maybe that is a good reason to lock up the criminals. Maybe that is a good reason to repeat this to all you know, and perhaps to a few you don’t know. Maybe that is a good reason to tell you friends and relatives. Maybe it is a good reason to tell your senators and representatives. Don’t bother telling Biden. It will only confuse him and he is confused enough already.

Then again, if a person is one of those who is a friend of criminals, also known as FOCs, also known as democrats, it just might encourage them to let more of the criminals out and there are already too many criminals on the street.

Maybe we should make the FOBs live among the criminals for a while…without guards. Maybe that would be a good way to reason with the dems. Nothing else seems to work.

By the way, while we are busy locking up the criminals, let’s make sure we lock up one of the worst, Fauci.

Pardon Me for Being Simple

If we put the criminals in prison, I would think it would decrease crime.

Why then do the dems want to let the criminals out of prison? Why is it that they want to let them out with low or no bail while awaiting trial?

The only explanation I can think of is that they want crime. I just don’t know why. Two things I do know. It is helping to sell guns and it is helping to promote drug abuse. For those not sharp enough to pick up on it, criminals do sell drugs… to our kids.

What’s in a Name

The official name is Democrat Party, though mostly they call themselves the Democratic Party. Andrew Jackson was the first democrat president. many hold the man in high regards but I don’t. I have many reasons but certainly the worst reason is the way he treated the Indians. Ever hear of The Trail of Tears?

Now, there are some who suggest that the name of the party be changed. They give reasons but it is not my point to get into that right now. One thing I do know is that democracy and socialism cannot coexist. For instance, to call it the socialist democrat party would be an oxymoron. Any party that is socialists cannot be democratic. Also, any party that is democratic cannot be socialist. Even if it does exist, it won’t for long. The socialists will take it over.

Mixing socialism and democracy is like trying to mix oil and water. You can put it in a blender and mix it for a while, but after a while, the oil will always float to the surface. By the way, socialism, too will always come out on top. Soon it will be socialism and then a dictatorship.

At any rate, as for a new name, why not call it what it has already become, a socialist party. By definition, in a democracy, the people make the choices. In a society this large, holding a nation wide vote for all decisions would be impossible. As I look around, it would seem the people haven’t had any say in the party for a decade or two. All the decisions seem to be made by the leaders. Moreover, I’m not really sure who those leaders are.

I look at the mayors, the elected leaders of cities and I wonder just who is pulling their strings. Do they really want the rioting in their streets? I look at the US representatives and I think about the way they vote sometimes. Do they really vote their conscience or what their constituents want? I rather suspect they vote the way Pelosi wants them to vote. Every time they vote against her, they rightfully look over their shoulder thinking about who will challenge them during their next primary. I ask you. Is that a democracy? It sounds more like king of the hill, or, in this case, queen.

The methods are no different than the ones they used in Russia and China. Their ultimate goal is control. Their ultimate desire is tyranny. A central rule, first within the nation, and then throughout the world. You doubt me. Read the Communist Manifesto. It’s all plainly spelled out there for one and all to see. Why should you expect anything different. Is there a reason to doubt their goals?

The government of the US is a republic, not a democracy. As Benjamin Franklin told the woman that day, “…if we can keep it.” It would appear that the socialist party would like to make sure we won’t keep it, or for that mater even our nation.

The Obvious Question

I don’t understand it.  The question is obvious and, yet, no one asks it.

You ask a gun control fanatic what we should do if someone enters our home and threatens us and they reply, “Call the police.”  This they do in spite of two facts.  One, without a means to defend myself, I might not be able to call anyone.  Also, of course, it will likely take 4 to 6 minutes for them to get to my house.

When a man broke into my house, I was fortunate.  Firstly, the police only took three minutes…after the call.  (They happened to be a few blocks away) That’s close to five minutes from when he broke in.  Secondly, I had two dogs that scared the man off.  Oddly, when he saw my 60 pound pets, he was more scared of them than I was of his gun.

Now, the liberals have decided to de-fund the police.  Some idiots actually want to completely want to get rid of them completely.

So… and here’s the question we all ought to ask, if I have no gun, just who am I supposed to call when a couple of characters break in carrying 9 millimeter handguns?  You get rid of my gun, I can’t defend myself.  You get rid of the cops, the best I can do is to rely on my dogs.

The truth of the matter is, first they want to get rid of our guns.  Second, they want to take our freedom from us.  They do that the same way protection rackets do.  The promise to protect us if we give up our freedom.  The bad thing is… it just might work.

A Whole of Conspiring Going On

There was a movie, “The Conspiracy Theory.”  (It’s a good movie.  If you haven’t seen it, you should.)  In it, a man whose sanity was a little suspect, proved a massive conspiracy.  I have a copy of it, a DVD and I have watched it a number of times.

The first time I watched it, it seemed very unbelievable.  Now, I have second thoughts.

Moreover, it has come to my attention that we are living in a real historic time.  The conspiracy that we have seen unfold before us is far greater than the one in the movie.

The list of conspirators is a very long list, so I will list them in groups.  First, there is the intelligence group: CIA and the rest of that alphabet soup.  Then the congressmen.  We certainly can’t overlook The Justice Department.  Of course, that would include the FBI, which includes likely a dozen or so high level personnel.

Some would suggest that Obama was part of it, maybe Biden as well.  They may or may not have instigated it but they definitely knew and did nothing to stop it.  To be sure, Obama was part of the group that wanted the Paris Accord.  Also, he likely would be very happy with a one world government.

The largest group was the press, those who were constantly quoting anonymous sources.  It is amazing how they managed to suggest all sorts of lies in bold print on the first page of every paper and they put the retractions well buried inside, if at all.

At least, to some degree, federal judges have tried to further the efforts of the conspirators.  Many times, they have chosen to make decisions against President Trump.  In one of the most recent ones, The Supreme Court decided unanimously against the lower court and in favor of the President.  Even the liberal agreed the lower courts were wrong.  The problem is that the lower courts managed a delay tactic and they knew it.

 

Every conspiracy has a purpose.  In this case, it had multiple purposes, but they all sprang from one goal, global control.  In the process, they knew they would have to destroy or circumvent the constitution, especially the first four amendments.  Something of a absurdity, they used the amendments in their attempt to destroy them, such as the freedom of speech and the press.  No one dares to say anything politically incorrect or they are immediately dragged through the mire of the justice of the press.

It also relied on ceding our sovereignty.  This was to be accomplished through the Paris accord and the TPP.  The trick is that any treaty with any other country, if approved by congress, supersedes the constitution.  Oh…and by the way.  This was all coincidental to ceding our sovereignty to the U.N.

The whole process was going along swimmingly for them.  Then, President Trump came along and became president.  Their first big disaster was when he withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and they started realizing the prognosis.  President Trump was not a globalist and he did not intend to let the globalist have their way.  Then, of course, he withdrew from the Paris Accord.  He saw right through the fog of the ecologists and chose not to cede any part of our sovereignty to the treaty.

Even before he took the oath of office, the conspirators were busy trying to destroy him and his administration.  One by one they have been busy trying to pick off members of his cabinet, this while setting traps and roadblocks.  The colluders knew that if the new judges believed in The Constitution, their efforts might be set back a decade or two.  Already, they realize some of their fears.  While the liberal lower courts continue to rewrite the law, The Supreme Court has now made several decisions in his favor and, ultimately, in the favor of our country.

Now it would appear that the documentation of the above is being exposed.  In case after case, the dummycrats, in public, tell of the Russian collusion.  However, in secure sessions, not one of them admits to knowing any anything about Russian collusion.

So, they either lied to us, the public, as part of a conspiracy or they lied to Congress under oath.  Somehow, I am more prone to believe that they were lying to us.  Lying to the public might have consequences, but it is not against the law.

In summary, it would appear that the only collusion going on was by the dummycrats.  Only, it is legally called conspiracy.

The historic fact is that we barely avoided a coup d’état by the globalists.  If they had succeeded, there would soon be no more constitution.  Our national government would soon be replaced by some kind of one world bureaucracy, possibly the U.N.

It is no wonder they hate President Donald Trump.  He foiled their takeover, at least for the short term.  If the dummycrats should regain control (and power) it would not be long before they would be right back on track.  President Trump will have only made enough of a bump in the road to slow them a few years.

I hope and pray that doesn’t happen.  I don’t like movies where the bad guys win.

 

Oh!  One more little detail.  Guess who is footing the bill for this conspiracy.  That’s right.  We, the tax payers.  (This includes all that was spent in framing Gen. Flynn.  It was likely 4 or 5 million dollars, maybe more.)

Don’t expect any of these conspirators to pay the price for their dirty deeds.  Dummycrats never go to jail, only republicans.