Rebuttal to David Hogg’s Five-Point Platform.


I have just recently become aware of David Hogg’s five point “platform” on firearms. Presumably the idea behind this is to reduce or stop firearm-related deaths.

Now it’s no secret that David has the audacity to talk about firearms without understanding the fundamentals of firearms and the actual issue(s), while shamelessly being proud of that. He continues this tradition of ignorance with his is five point platform that is so patently absurd and obviously specious that anyone of average intelligence would find what he proposes to be offensive to their thinking ability.

Let’s go through each one, starting with the first one on the CDC. First the CDC is already researching gun violence, what it’s not being allowed is use funding to take a political stance when it comes to its research. This means, the CDC must be fair and take no position in regards to its. research.

For example, The American Pediatric Association does research into circumcision that is intentional in regards to directing research to fit a conclusion that fits the cultural bias of its members. Instead of allowing the research to be unbiased and one sided.

To remove such a barrier as David suggest, would allow the research into firearm-related gun violence to be bias and one sided fitting the already established cultural acceptance of its members. In many ways this could even backfire on to David. Because, if most of the CDC members are pro-gun, then the research could result in conclusions that are in favor of firearms.

By restricting the CDC from becoming political in its research, the CDC is forced to be fair and unbiased to the best of its ability. David Hogg however, would have us put in place a system that allows for biased research. This is wrong and I’m ethical I’m so many levels.

Next on his list was Universal background checks. We actually already have a universal background check. Every time anybody goes to buy a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer, they have to submit to a Federal background check. That is the universal background check.

Now David didn’t give a lot of information on exactly what he means by Universal background check. Chances are, there’s more to what he was wanting to say here, but is limited by Twitter’s character limit. However, I don’t want to speculate on what his meant by Universal background check so I just leave it there.

Next point about digitizing ATF records has me wondering, what exactly does he mean by this? Is he talking about keeping track of who owns what fire arms? This would be highly illegal and unconstitutional.

It also would be incredibly worrisome for those of us who actually own firearms. Because it would mean there would be a gun registry. This would be a huge issue for many gun owners who have a history of not registering their firearms in the states that require them to register their “assault weapons.”

Because many of us gun owners see a issue with the idea how this gives the government the power, when they say, all guns are illegal, the government or powers-that-be, would know who has what kinds of firearms and how many. So when people who was decide not to follow an unconstitutional ban on firearms, would now be expecting to be targets and can expect a knock on their door. And really? What does David expect here? A highly expensive “mandatory buyback” a firearms that people will ignore, or a forceful confiscation which many will resist?

This could lead to an intense amount of deaths from all the people who would resist and possibly even a civil war that could result in more deaths than thousands of years of gun ownership could do and possibly destroying America all together. The destruction after a civil war, is not always the easiest thing to come out of no matter who wins.

Besides, one thing we’ve learned from states that have enacted their own firearm registrations, very few people actually register their firearms in the first place. They rather take the risk, then give up their rights. Like many gun owners they’re probably utilizing the mantra, I’d rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

And seeing that we live in a day and age when we can’t even keep are most personal information safe and secure. We may actually find ourselves less safe when criminals get a hold of this information. Using it to know who has firearms and who does not. This could create higher crime rates and also, more deaths, which I suspect David wants these digital records to somehow prevent.

Next on his list is a high capacity magazine. This idea that caring less ammunition in a magazine will somehow save lives, flies in the face of everything we know about firearms. It’s also at odds with the very school shooting that took place at his own School. That he may or may not have actually been at during the shooting.Because the shooter in that school shooting did not have high capacity magazines.

Dropping a magazine and putting a new one in happened so fast, that no one has time to react. Let alone know that it just happened. We’re talking 2 to 5 seconds. By the time anyone realizes what’s going on, it’s already too late. The old magazine was dropped and a new one was put in.

In many ways this could actually be more dangerous. Because now, in that 2 to 5 seconds, people might stick their heads up to see why there’s no shooting. By the time they do that, the shooter has reloaded, notices where they’re at and can go after them in their hiding spot and shoot them right there.

Not to mention the only way to even know a person is exchanging magazine just to actually see it happen. Most people will be ducking for cover and hiding. Their ears will be ringing so they won’t even hear he already hard to hear faint click of a spent firearm. So this probably won’t affect anybody, and if it does it may actually make it worse as mentioned.

It may also make it worse for such people as security, armed civilians. Because now the shooters who definitely have no interest in obeying the law and can still get their hands on such magazines, or can simply use a 3D printer to make their own. While the Law Abiding Citizen is dtuck with say a 10-round magazine. So now he only has 10 rounds while the shooter would have 30 round magazine or a 100 round drum. We quite literally would be putting more people’s lives at risk with that simple fact alone.

So, David platform here, would most likely put more people’s lives in danger, then it would save. If it could save anyone’s life at all. Putting more people’s lives at risk, in my view is really not a great idea.

The last one he listed was a assault weapons ban. Of course he didn’t define what an assault weapon is supposed to be and I suspect if I was to ask him in person what an assault weapon is, he wouldn’t be able to define it in any useful way. Giving a definition that would probably include every gun other than revolvers and muskets.

Or he may be honest and just say any firearm that looks scary to him. Firearms like AK-47 or something along the lines of a AR platform rifle.

Hover most Firearms used in most shootings including mass shootings are not rifles or “assault weapons” but are handguns. And if they don’t use a AR they will use a handgun, that again is responsible for more firearm related deaths then rifles. Thus, the problem isn’t solved by what David Hogg is presenting here.

So, what David has presented here, his Five Point platform at best would have no effect, at worse could result in far more people losing their lives. This is what he wants, its what many of his fellow gun control advocates want and it’s why we must resist their dangerous stupidity.

Advertisements

David Hogg, swatted


It’s no secret that I not only disagree with David Hogg, but I think he’s a horrible human being. However somebody decided to take it upon themselves to call the police and put in a false report that had SWAT teams rushing into David’s house. And I am adamantly against this.

No doubt the person who call the police thought they were being funny. However, swatting is not funny. It’s dangerous and puts people’s lives at risk. We already have a case where somebody had died due to this hoax.

I have no doubt the police are actually going to find this person who initiated this prank. For one, David Hogg’s is not poor and he is famous enough, with a family well positioned, in positions of power. The police will use resources to actually catch this person. Not to mention, because somebody has already died because of this hoax, they going to make an example out of this person.

And if it turns out to be a pro-gun person, which chances are it is. This is only going to make it harder for those of us fighting in support our right to bear arms. Because now David Hogg and the gun grabbers will be able to use that as an appeal to people’s emotion instead of facts.

Ruling on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission


Well, it took many years, but the Supreme Court has ruled on the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. Though they didn’t exactly rule in such a way that either side won.

Well not exactly anyways, the ruling was simply that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission case was more like a dismissal that favored the baker. And from what I can find, it was because of the comments of a judge in one of the lower courts in Colorado. However this ruling was enough which allowed the baker to win the case and be free from baking the cake.

Personally, I adamantly disagree at the idea Bible says anything negative against a loving relationship (marriage) between two consenting adults. It clearly does not and requires a huge amount of manipulation of what the Bible actually does say to get it to be against gays. However, I do think that the Supreme Court should have given us a more clear verdict. Where it makes it clear, that you cannot force a religious person to act against their religious beliefs.

This whole case was nothing more than a joke in my opinion. The gay couple simply could have just gone to another Bakery and have the cake made by a baker who is willing to take money. This is part of how capitalism works. Not to mention, this was not exactly a small town with only one Baker.

Also, the thing that people fail to understand in this case, is that this business was a private business, not a corporation. This means they actually do not serve the public, they serve those they choose. Those in their private transaction, that’s it. I would think the word private, private business would make this pretty clear. So they are not required to serve everyone, violating the religious rights and right to free expression.

This is why we cannot go into Jewish kosher deli and order bacon. Or demand a Islamic halal meat shop do the same. You cannot force the owners of a private shop to violate their religion because someone demands they do. Private entities are not slaves, and thus have the right to refuse service and lose out on money in the process.

However despite him not being a slave, that is exactly how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was treating him. Ruling that the was no longer allowed to make any wedding cakes, while forcing Jack, the bakery owner, to provide for his employees, gay-friendly reeducation.

He was literally being forced by the Civil Rights Commission, due to two LGBQ+SubtractThe5 bullies, to violate his religious beliefs. He was the one ultimately being discriminated in this case. A religious man who had been equally baking cakes for gay people just like he did straight people. Birthday cakes, rainbow cakes (Yes Christians like rainbows, so he’s making the same kind of cake for gays) etc… However, he just refuse to make a particular cake that was not on his list of cakes that he makes due to his religious beliefs.

This man is being forced to say something that he doesn’t want to say in the form of his artistic expression (cakes). This is wrong, unethical, unjust and unconstitutional.

Seeking to Destroy Others. Enough is Enough.


Why is it those with different political views are looking to destroy people’s lives, just to score political points?

Roseanne was cancelled recently after she said posted tweet. Although it was bad, it was not really as horrible as people are making it out to be. Something I blogged about a few days ago. Now the right is going after Samantha Bee for saying something stupid as well, wanting her to be cancelled. As well, to make a point about the left’s hypocrisy.

Both sides are willing to destroy the lives of individuals, who just simply said something really stupid. All to score political points for their own side. And it’s not just something that affect the individual who says something stupid. It also affects those who work alongside them. From their fellow actors and actresses, to the cameraman and janitors, who find themselves losing their job and struggling to feed their families when the show is shut down and their services are no longer needed.

Why are people looking to destroy others lives just to get one up on the other? I’m doubtful there are many people who have not said anything in their past that they regret. And I doubt they won’t ever do it again. I’m guilty of it and I probably will do it again in the future. As humans, we say and do stupid things from time to time, things that we regret saying. We shouldn’t have our jobs threatened and lose our ability to support our families, due to that rare occasions mess up.

Yet, all these people are jumping over each other just the score political points for their own side. Sacrificing other people to do so. What has our society become? How is anyone okay with this?

Enough is enough…..

Roseanne cancelled again


I have always enjoy the show Roseanne. Even after it was cancelled originally, I’d always find myself channel surfing and stopping to watch an old rerun. Of course, I was ecstatic when I heard it was coming back. I wasn’t sure how they would do it, or what direction the show was going to take.

Originally, I heard there was going to be a little boy that would wear girls clothing and a black girl, I was thinking great this is going to be a highly regressive, social justice warrior version of the show. After all Roseanne was always a very liberal actress, it was already quite a liberal show back on the day and a head of its time with the issues of the day.

Needless to say I was highly surprised the social justice Warriors and the regressive left wanted to show cancelled before it even started. Apparently, they just simply didn’t like the idea that there would be conservatives (Roseanne and Dan) portrayed in a positive light. Seems you’re only allowed to have conservatives on your show if they are the butt of a joke.

However, unlike them I was willing to give the shell shot despite the SJW direction it looked like it was taking. And so, I watched it and I was pleasantly surprised with it. One of the things that I like the most was that, despite how all the family members were so vastly different in their political views, views on how to deal with different situations even. They did not let their views drive a wedge between each other while finding a way to work through their problems together. Taking care of each other.

That’s one hell of a message. A message of Hope, a message that apparently SJW and the regressive left did not like, demanding it be cancelled before it actually was canceled, yet again.

I’m actually surprised by their reaction to this show. Because if anything, this would be a great way for SJW’s to help turn some of the more racist and hateful people on the conservative side to become more tolerant of other people, ideas and races. Maybe even turning a racist or a islamophobe into a non-racist, tolerant person.

However, it would seem that the SJW’s are so intolerant themselves, to the point that you just simply can’t have such a show even if it could have positive effects.

Now with that being said, Roseanne was ultimately canceled after the liberal actress Roseanne made a tweet that has been interpreted as racist. No I’m not saying what she said was not racist. I’d say that’s most likely an accurate argument for her insult. I would argue however, that out of all the horrible things I’ve heard people say, what she said was pretty mild. Especially in comparison to the things that are said against Christians and white male. What you said is more akin to what you might expect a second grader to say on the playground.

I also don’t think using a racist insult means that the person who used it, is automatically racist. If anything, the person who thinks that way is probably doing so, due to their own racism and it’s a projection of themselves. Because they think that something they would do review their own racism.

Now I’m not arguing she’s not racist or is one. I don’t even see a issue with people being upset with what she said. And now she is now suffering the consequences of what she said. Though I would say people’s reaction over such a comment are hugely overblown. I suspect most people over reaction to what she said are just a way for many to use her increase their status amongst their fellow SJW’s and regressive.

With that said, I’m not exactly happy with the reaction from ABC, canceling the show yet again for a very mild comment. Especially when the show was capable of doing so much good despite such a mild insult. Nor am I happy with other networks canceling even the old shows reruns, such as Laff and even Hulu.

I think the best reaction should have been to just let her take a hit on social media and continue with the show. If however the show took a hit ratings-wise, then sure at that point you cancel the show. Letting the customer speak. Chances are they wouldn’t lose very many viewers, if anything they probably see an increase.

Because most of the people who are complaining about such a mild comment are people who already wanted the show cancelled. People who aren’t even watching the show. So I think the best thing ABC should have done, was to let the show continue and possibly help change a lot of real racist mindset.

However, it would seem others who have the ability to make such decisions about the show disagree. Sadly all this cancellation has done was done was further divide the left and the right. While it may have actually helped push people on both sides more to the extreme side of the aisle they already sit on.

Blaming The Solution


Some 40 years ago children and teens it was normal to take their guns to school. Many schools even have shooting ranges. However, today they are extremely rare and you no longer see kids with rifles on their back walking to school, nor rifle racks in the back of trucks school parking lots.

Today, almost all schools have ban guns if they have not already been banned by local state laws. And unlike 40 years ago, there have been many mass shootings. Despite this people are blaming the guns, not the areas that are attracting these shooters to them. Areas like schools that can no longer fight back or have almost no resistance.

Earlier this month there was yet another mass shooting at a school that was a gun free zone. Sending a shiver up my spine, more so when I think about how it could happen at my son’s school. And like usual, there’s a push to ban a tool.

When I look at the situations with this Valentine’s Massacre, we find that so many things had gone wrong. Yet, it is the guns that are being blamed. The shooter himself even said he was going to become a school shooter in a public forum. Yet no law enforcement agency acted on it, doing anything to stop this monster from killing others. He also had many other posts on the internet talking about how he wanted to shoot people and die fighting. Instagram and YouTube have these comments reported to them and did nothing.

Well this happened over the course of 7 years, Police had shown up to his house 39 time and could not or did not take any action. Even the Uber driver that drove him to the school dropping him off with a rifle bag and did not report this to anyone.

This was a failure in every way. From how nearly everyone just ignored every red flag with this shooter. Ignoring every sign, not reporting what they had seen, police inaction, even removing people’s ability to defend themselves by creating a gun free zone. Yet, it is a tool, a firearm that is getting the blame. A tool that could have been in the hands of a good guy at this school that could have stopped this early on.

You want to blame some, blame the people who see the shooters post about shooting up schools and did nothing. Want to blame something, blame the system that did nothing. But don’t blame the solution, firearms. Or you will just make the problem worse.