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.


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.

What is happening in California?

California seems hell bent on doing some very stupid things, while giving the middle finger to the constitution and the people who live their. Leaving me scratching my head and asking, what is happening in California?

Just look at some of the things they have been doing. Things like, reducing the punishment for not telling someone they have AID’s/HIV to a misdemeanor. To hell with the recipient, who now must spend a lifetime taking drugs to stay alive. Oh, let’s not forget about all their gun control laws that are an infringement upon its citizens second amendment rights.

However, now in California, they are charging a man for the crime of criticizing Islam. That’s right, apparently it is a crime in the state of California to express your opinion about a religion that is completely incompatible with the Western world. A religion where its believers seems so unable to defend their police with reason and logic, that they need laws in place to prevent others from even saying anything that reveals just how dumb Islam is.

Our first amendment protects everyone’s right to free speech. Not just mine, Christianity, Judaism, islam, males, females, whites, blacks, etc… it is meant for every America. Yes, this even includes hate speech and obsessive speech. Yet in California, saying something offensive to Muslims is now a crime.

Of course we won’t see the SJW, ANTFA, etc…. Come out and protest this injustice as this is what they want too. They are the useful idiots who are only helping to strip peoples rights away.

If someone criticized Christianity, or attempted to attack what I believe, I would not cry and want to have them silenced, face fines or go to jail. Instead, I would be one of the first persons defend their constitutional right to say whatever they want, even if they are wrong. I would even defined their right to do so in court.

I am thankful that I don’t live there. However, California should be seen as a warning to us all. A warning that it can happen here too. So, it tells us we need to help the few people left in California that are still fighting for people’s rights. Because, if they can get away with it there, it will spread out among other states and become harder to stop.

The left is not liberal.

What I am about to say may seem kind of strange to some. Mainly because there was a time when the left and liberals were synonymous with each other. However, that is no longer the case. The left are no longer liberal if anything they have become the anti-liberal.

In a ironic twist, the right has begin to shift towards being liberal. Even the alt-right which is made up of some very racist people, have become more liberal then the left is today. Now I understand many people may be yelling at their monitors after reading, but let me make my case.
Most people don’t really know what a liberal is. When they hear the word, they tend to automatically think Democrat or the left.  It’s as if it’s just simply another label used for them and they would be wrong.
However, being a liberal simply means you believe people should be free and independent, or if you will a person believe in Live and Let Live. 
Doing a quick search online reveals the following definition for what a liberal is.




1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. “they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people”

favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms. “liberal citizenship laws”
“the values of a liberal society” (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.

Now that you’ve read that, let me ask you something. When colleges and student groups go around trying to silence others from being heard, is that liberal or is it oppressive? 
These students and colleges that don’t want other opinions to be be heard are literally oppressing another person’s freedom to speak and be heard all because they disagree with it. They’re not open to new ideas, or opinions, they’re not being respectful to their rights and individual freedoms. Instead they’re trying to force their collectivist ideas onto others while being the only voice heard.
At the Berkeley protest, that resulted in violent outbreaks to stop and silence the Free Speech protesters. As well as the violence that broke out the silence Milo yiannopoulos. It wasn’t the left or the progressives talking about tolerance for new ideas and different opinions, it was people on the right who did. It was Trump supporters, even the racist/white supremacist we’re the ones talking about it. Talking about how they disagree with people, but respect their right to be heard. Why the left did everything they could to silence the other side.
Needless to say, I never thought I’d see the day when a white supremacist was on the right side of history for once.

Even when Christians, Christians that belive homosexuality is wrong (not all of us do), refuse to bake a cake they are attacked by the left and sued for not participating in doing what they feel is a morally wrong thing to do.  
Is the owner of the shop free to live their lives how they want, when they are forced to do something they don’t want to do? Is the homosexual couple displaying liberty? How about when religious companies that are forced to pay for healthcare that allows for abortion, effectively making them pay for other people to kill their own born child? Of course not.
A true liberal would let others to speak and not use violence to silence them. They would let the free-market take effect when it came to that baker. They would not force a company and its owners to pay for abortion or birth control. Nor would a liberal sue a company for not baking them a cake.
The pendulum has now shifted, it is the many who are on the right who are becoming liberal. More liberal then left has been in some time. Even hateful racist and homophobic groups now are the new liberals in a ironic twist of fate. As there was a time when the right and those groups on the right didn’t want other groups or individuals with dissenting opinions be heard.
Now with left and progressive behaving as typical fascist do. As they grow more and more intolerant of other who do not conform to their collective mentality and ideas, to the point of useing violence against anyone who is not in agreement with them. They’ve lost the title of liberal. As they cannot tolerate anybody who does not think as they do. 
It is definitely interesting to live in these times and watch as the pendulum swings. Remember there was a time when it was the right who helped free the slaves and fought for people’s individual freedoms and then the pendulum switch to the left.

Now it’s going back to the right. Where it is the people on the right fighting for are individual freedoms and not just gun rights, but also our freedom of speech 

Now I’m not saying the right is any better than the left but I am saying the right is now the liberal side.


Human history is riddled with a lot of disgusting and disturbing Acts. With Some of our worst moments having taken place when one group of humans had declared that others are not human, or are some kind of subset of humans. A kind of less developed human being.

Millions of Jews had been sent to the gas chamber. As they had been seen as Untermensch, a term that was used to describe inferior people.

Even slaves had been seen as not being human. Thus, it was fine to do what you wanted to with them.

However, it seems we have not learned from our past. Where millions of our most innocent have been killed because others have deemed them not to be human. Or are said to be a less-developed human.

At least not until they pass through the vagina, as if the vagina is a magical barrier that turns them into a Human Being.

I’m talking about the millions of babies that have been routed out of their mother’s in what is called an abortion. A word that fails to really describe the genocide that is taking place. After all if you described it as crushing skulls or sucking brains out, it could have an effect of humanizing the unborn baby’s. So, other words are used in their place called euphemisms.

Euphemisms are used in order to downplay the barbarism of this genocide. Where words such as abortion and terminating a pregnant are used. They won’t even call it a baby. Instead, they choose to call it a clump of cells, a parasite or a zygote in order to dehumanize the innocent life within.

Why do you think the same people who use such Euphemisms don’t ask pregnant women, at lest women who have are going to have their babies such things as, “Are you going to find out if your zigote will be a boy or girl?” instead choosing to use the word “baby.” Never using the words zigote, blastocysts, even calling it parasite or clump of calls.

Chances are you have never heard anyone refer to an unborn child that way, unless there are talking about killing the baby. Then they use such words. Why because its easier to justify ripping the baby out of the womb if you no longer think of it as a human.

Showing that it is only a human when its wanted, and when it’s not wanted they disconnect it in their minds from humanity. Justifying it by dehumanizing the life and down playing what is done to extinguish that life.

It’s discussing how people feel that it’s ok to take a human life because it’s an inconvenience for them. No one has the right to snuff out the most innocent of us. A person right not to be inconvenienced does not trump the right for that individual human being to live.

To use a common pro-baby killer Euphemism, It is sad to think that the embryo of an eagle is seen as more valuable then that of a human, where terminating the eagle embryo will result in a heavy fine and or prison time. But a human embryo can’t get that same protection.

With this said, we on the side of saving lives must put forth plans and programs that, while they don’t incentivize people to pop out babies for some kind of reword or hand out, we do need to come up with ideas to give mothers reasons to keep the children, while setting up programs to better take care of the children who are given up. And to adopt more children, giving them a home with a loving family.

Because in the fight to save lives, many have forgotten that if you win, there is still a life that needs to be taken care of once born. And the implications, such as truing over the unconstitutional ruling Raw v. Wade without a plan to care for the many children is careless to say the lest.

This is something that must be discussed now, not later. Not after its over turned, not right before it is. Now!