Anti-2A zealots smell blood in the water.

The political tide may be turning, or at least the people who wish to do away with the Second Amendment (2A) are acting like it is.

Since September of 2004, when the federal assault weapons ban expired, the "gun grabbers" have had a difficult time making progress on their agenda of eventually disarming law abiding Americans of their firearms. They've had to fight tooth and nail to whittle away at the 2A inch by inch, and those inches have been hard fought over. But they've always been fine to do it that way if they must. They're playing the long game, and the long game is almost always played in inches.

Every time there is another mass shooting, the left wing mainstream media (MSM) splashes it on every channel, newspaper and magazine in North America, and even sometimes it gains attention in Western Europe. When I say "mass shooting", of course I only mean the ones that don't occur daily in places like Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis or any other democrat managed, gun control haven. As far as the MSM is concerned, mass shootings only take place in areas populated by people who look and live like the people who's hearts and minds they're trying to win. Sandy Hook is not populated by the same kind of people that populate the Englewood neighborhood in Chicago. The people who populate Englewood do not need to be convinced to side with the democrats. They've already got plenty of incentive to do so. The left wing needs to convince white suburbanites to side with them, so therefore, the MSM portrays mass shootings as mainly taking place in locations where white suburbanites live. They'll even tell you that the rest of the world doesn't have mass shooting events at all. Anders Breivik must have been a figment of our collective imagination. The claim is false, a lie, as the US isn't even in the top ten in the world when it comes to mass shooting deaths. France and Norway outrank the US, as do Finland and Belgium. Gang and drug related shootings often meet the numerical requirements of a "mass" shooting in the US, but those types of events aren't of any use to the left in the gun rights debate. So they're ignored.

The problem has so far been that gun owners and those white suburbanites haven't really bought into what the democrats are selling. At least not when it comes to guns. Support for additional gun control laws has still been at low levels. Too low for the democrats to pass any gun control legislation outside of their strongholds of NY, Kalifornia, Connecticut and a few others. In the last decade, they were even forced to start issuing concealed weapons permits in Illinois, though that system is still prohibitively difficult to navigate (by design, of course).

White suburbanites are simply either not paying attention and reacting the way the left needs them to. It has resulted in almost no movement on gun legislation at the federal level since 2004. There has been some movement in the individual states though. Most of the movement has been in a positive direction though. The number of open carry states stands now at about 45, depending on your interpretation. It would be more correct to say that there are only five states that totally ban the open carry of handguns.

But now back to the title. The anti-gun zealots are acting like they smell blood in the water. They're making a much harder effort to push the gun control narrative. The #NeverAgain movement, seemingly spearheaded by courageous high school students, but in reality led by backstage NGO and democrat party operatives, appears to be large in numbers. I say "appears to be" because things are not always as they appear. But it is obvious that they have significant numbers of participants in the various rallies they've held under the #NeverAgain banner.

The reason I think that they're smelling blood is because they're making the same efforts that they've made in the past after each major shooting, but this time some of it seems to having an effect. After past shooting events, the democrats in the states and at the federal level have knashed their teeth and hollered for new laws to enforce restrictions on law abiding gun owners, to nearly zero effect. Even when 0bama was in office, no leftward progress was made. At the state level, democrats watched almost helplessly as state after state passed laws to empower law abiding gun owners. Legalizing open carry became the trend. Only a few states were able to get any significant gun control laws rammed through. New York and Connecticut were among the few, but even Illinois and D.C. were forced to creat a legal concealed carry system (though they both are extremely resistant to issuing anyone a permit).

But the mass shooting in Las Vegas (LV), followed by the school shooting in Broward County, Florida has turned the tide of the ineffectiveness, or at least it has so far. At the federal level, the LV shooting immediately spurred calls for a ban of "bump stocks", which oddly enough, a lot of "gun rights supporters" seemed to be willing to give in to. At the state level, in my own state of Florida, the school shooting renewed an annual democrat party failure, the assault weapons ban (AWB). The propose AWB failed again, but a bump stock ban, age restrictions and waiting periods succeeded.

Another thing that succeeded in Florida was a proposal to arm school teachers. I'll be brief, this was not a victory for gun rights supporters. The bill text actually states that the only teachers eligible for carrying are those who do not exclusively perform classroom duties, and those who complete a state sanctioned school safety and gun safety course. The course must be approved by the county sheriff and district superintendent. Reading the text, I feel that the bill was written to actually block the vast majority of teachers of from being eligible. At my daugher's school, only two staff members are eligible, and the county has not approved at training program.

The "gun grabbers" are seeing a degree of success at the federal level that they haven't achieved since 2004. They have a president that has poked his finger in their eye at every turn, but has shown a propensity for returning to his New York roots. By that I mean liberalism. After the shooting in Broward, he did a 180 on what we thought his position would be and he endorsed and promised a ban on bump stocks. During the same meeting, he stated that national concealed carry permit reciprocity was a non-starter. During the meeting, Senator Feinstein, the queen of the senate gun control effort, was seen laughing maniacally and rubbing her hands together. Yeah, like a damn cartoon villain.

Now don't get me wrong. The democrats haven't really won a whole lot lately, Florida is just one state (though Florida is significant) and bump stocks are only one small piece. But prior to this recent small success, democrats had enjoyed nearly zero success outside of their deep blue strongholds, of which there are not many.

This success has been made possible by the legions of gun owners who said "just give them the bump stocks, we don't need them". They were willing to give an inch in the hopes that it would settle the anti crowd down. But does it ever? Have we not learned their ultimate goal? They aim to win the long game inch by inch. The problem is that they operate like a ratchet mechanism. Every time we give them an inch, that inch is gone. We almost never get it back. They take an inch by banning bump stocks, or raising the age limit for buying a gun to 21 years of age, or by enacting waiting periods, or magazine limits, or by adding hours to the concealed weapons permit class, or raising the fee... Understand? They do those little things and then let them sit for a while and become common, so that anyone who eventually raises the idea of changing them is met with the "it's always been this way" argument. That argument is probably responsible for more legislative inaction than any other. My point is that in this game of inches, we can't afford to EVER give them an inch, because of two things; We never get that inch back, and we already know that there is no stopping point before we get to total disarmament.

When WE take an inch, that inch is ALWAYS up for renegotiation, especially the next time there is an opportunity to use someone's blood to tip the scale to the left.

My final point during this rambling post (sorry, I've been a little disorganized) is that a compromise bill never is a real compromise. Case in point, the Florida law that imposed age restrictions, waiting periods, banned bump stocks and supposedly allows teachers to carry. The bill was hailed as some compromise that both sides weren't totally happy with, but could live with. In reality, as I stated, the law actually blocks most teachers from even being eligible to participate in the required training to carry on campus, and then the sheriff also has the authority to deny the program anyway. If the left sees that it's now able to grab some more inches by getting republicans to pass these lopsided compromise bills, then they've got a path to victory. Republicans are the ones who passed the law.

As a law abiding gun owner, I see a shift in sentiment going on. The left surely must see it as well. They're going to start circling like sharks to take more bites and if we gun rights supporters don't harden our resolve and quit giving inches away to appease the left for another year or two, we are going to have to explain to our kids what freedom was like.

There is only one reason to disarm a people.

The story of how the FBI (and Robert Mueller) ruined an innocent family.

Here is a story of when FBI informants murdered a man who owed the mob money. The FBI covered for it's informants and framed four innocent men, including a decorated WWII veteran. This is the story of how the FBI destroyed that veteran's family, and how Robert Mueller wrote letters to the parole board to keep that innocent veteran in prison for the rest of his life.

Trust the FBI, indeed.

This is why they're replacing white Americans.

This is why they're replacing white people in America. This is why they're emasculating men. This is why they need us to be disarmed.

If we won't vote them into power, they'll simply import millions of dark skinned third world savages who will. They'll bring them in and incentivize them to outbreed us with money, services and benefits. Meanwhile, our young white women are encouraged to forgo having a family in favor of being a career driven woman who breaks through that "glass ceiling", despite the fact that when you compare working women against working men, men actually make only about 94¢ for every $1 a woman makes.

Once they outbreed us into the minority, they'll simply have to kill off the rest of us. For that, they'll have to disarm us. But they're working on that. Slowly but surely. No one needs a fully automatic weapon? Outlaw them. Sound suppressors are scary? Mandate a tax stamp. Don't care about bumpstocks? Give them up. Keep giving them an inch. Inch by inch. When was the last time they gave US an inch?

When do we harden our resolve for the fight that lies before us?

Psalm 144:1. It's not for nothing.

No one's business.

Bitter Hillary!

Hillary did an interview with someone of little consequence in front of a crowd of remote controlled clapping machines, or at least that's what they might as well have been. During this interview she unloads on, well, pretty much anyone who didn't vote for her. She says that the areas of the US that Trump won don't want women to have jobs, don't want black people or "Indian" people to do well and that those red areas in the Midwest are "backward", while the areas that voted for her are "optimistic, diverse and forward looking", whatever that means.

She states that the areas that voted against her had a problem that they wanted solved. This is correct, but her assessment of that problem is incorrect. Her assessment is that our problem is that we are racist, sexist and backwards. The real issue is that we are tired of being insulted, demeaned, taken from and ignored. This interview she did proves that point. In it, she shows that her care is for ONLY her voters, and that she has no understanding or concern for the wellbeing of anyone who doesn't fit into her "forward looking" club.

I am a Trump skeptic and I have much that I agree with him on, and much that I don't. But Trump SHOWED up to places like Wisconsin and Michigan. He's come to my area at least three times in the last three years can during and after his campaign. He listened to whites instead of lecturing them.

Hillary derisively refers to "make America great again" with an emphasis on the word "again". She doesn't understand something. If most white, English speaking Americans living in the meat of America, away from the West Coast and New England, believe that America needs to be made great AGAIN, then she maybe she should have listened. She doesn't live in the REAL America. Most people in Southern Kalifornia don't live in the REAL America. Most people in New York City and Washington D.C. don't live in the REAL America.

Maybe she should have paid attention to the people who do live there.

Canadians wait for medical treatments.

Canada currently has a "single payer" healthcare system, which basically saying that the Canadian government pays for all of the healthcare of it's citizens.

On it's face, people might think this sounds great. Pay taxes, get healthcare anytime you need it. But that's not really how it works out.

First, Canadians pay very high taxes, even compared to people in the US. Second, they've allowed the government to pay for their healthcare, which means that the government CONTROLS their healthcare. Whoever controls your healthcare gets to make the decisions, even if indirectly.

Canadians are waiting an average of 21.2 weeks to receive treatment from a specialist. This is a direct result of the government running their single payer system.

In the US, 0bamacare was designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain on the taxpayers. Insurance rates have skyrocketed. Even the cheapest 0bamacare plan has become too expensive for poor Americans to afford. In the hospital I work at, we still have the same amount of patients without insurance as before. They're not paying their bills.

Once Americans have had enough of the punishment, they will cry for a single payer system. That's the goal, the original intent of 0bamacare. The US healthcare system accounts for one sixth of the entire US economy. The government would love to have control of that sector.

Got some fresh picked strawberries into canned jelly.

Yesterday we went to a local farm and picked about ten and a half pounds of fresh strawberries, paid about $16. After the kids ate a half pound of them, dirt and all, we went home and canned about five pounds of it into jelly that will last a long time. Canning is a traditional skill that families should have.

Answer: The disarming, replacement, subjugation and elimination of white Americans.

It's long been said that "climate change" is the fault of Americans. The latest idea is that it's actually just the fault of WHITE Americans. So what the latest solution to this latest problem that none of us knew we had?

In order to save the climate, people are supposed to stop having kids.

So why am I saying that this is primarily directed at whites? Simple. While academia and the media are telling us to stop having kids, the government is incentivizing minorities to do the opposite.

There are more minority households receiving welfare than there are white ones. As we know, more kids usually means more money. So while one side is telling us to have less children, minorities are being paid to have more.

Next. Immigration. We are told that chain migration is a moral necessity. So Juan infiltrates the US via the Southern border, and once he's here, he claims to have had a dream of something, and now he stays. But with chain migration, he must be allowed to bring his kids. And his wife. And his parents. And his wife's parents. And his siblings. And his wife's siblings. And then when THEY all get here, the chain migration starts over WITH EACH OF THEM. Then they get on welfare where they are incentivized to further anchor their status as residents by having more kids. Meanwhile, academia and the media are still telling whites to have fewer children and incentivizing women to work by keep wages stagnant and encouraging feminist, anti-children attitudes.

Next item. Guns. It's been researched and found that legal gun ownership is a white people thing. So now our right to keep and bear arms is being attacked. You'll also see in that Pew Research link that minorities have a much higher chance of being involved in a criminal act involving a gun. Restrictive gun laws are not going to restrict criminals. So it becomes obvious that restrictive gun laws are going to affect white people much more than minorities.

In the post title, I gave you the answer. The question is: What is the goal of the elites in academia, the legal system, the media and government?

Related, from WRSA.

Are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube neutral public forums?

Recently representatives from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube testified in front of Congress that their companies are to be considered "neutral public forums" under the protections of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The CDA provides liability protections for companies in the case of litigation stemming from user generated content. Basically, you can't go after a company if a user says or does something illegal using the company's public forum offering.

With that said, companies that claim protections under the CDA by labeling themselves as neutral public forums are not allowed to engage in political censorship or editorializing. They can choose one, but not both. Either CDA protection or the ability to censor content for political reasons.

It's my position that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are double dipping. All three have been shown to be heavily censoring any kind of content with a conservative leaning message.

Actual, legitimate Jewish questions. Yes, just questions.

I do not harbor any ill will toward Jewish people for being Jewish. I do not have any feelings that any sane, objective person would consider to be anti-Semitic, which is apparently one of the worst things anyone can be. So I'm told. However, I do have some questions that my research isn't really answering for me at this point.


-If I am supposed to support Israeli Jews (and non-Israeli Jews as well) by voting straight Republican Party (Christian churches and Republican politicians tell me this) then why do the vast majority of Jews in the US vote for and donate to Democrats? If I am supposed to support them by voting a certain way, why then do they vote differently?

-How is it that that only about 2% of the US population (Jews) are in control of the majority of American major media corporations and retail companies which push anti-American, anti-conservative and anti-Christian propaganda? It seems highly unlikely that such a small segment of the population would control such a large portion of the corporate and industrial environment.

-How is it that Jews are the only people on earth who are allowed to have an ethno-state (Israel), which is to say a state just for them, based on their racial or ethnic characteristics? I agree that they have a right to have a state like this, but I also feel that they should not be the only ones. What about white Americans with European ancestry?


Anyone able to answer any of these for me?