What do you see in the above image? What is the common element in all three quotations? If you're struggling, allow me to assist you. All three want congress to impose more gun control at the federal level; a staple of the Socialist left's platform and rhetoric for decades. I was saying long ago, during Trump's campaign, that he was a flagrant leftist (if not Democrat agent). I said if he was elected he would do profound damage to the Republican brand. The man's an idiot at best, a subversive at worst. But Trumpbots would hear nothing of it. Trump was God's anointed. A porn star banger sent by Jesus to save us from Hillary, the Democrats, and Socialism... with gun control apparently.
Unless the Constitution is Amended, and the proviso that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is altered to confer to congress that power, contrary to popular misconception congress may not pass gun control regulation at the federal level. No, not even with majority support in congress, or a simple majority support among the people. Why? Because this country was Founded as a Constitutional Republic. Not a "democracy."
The right of the people to bear arms may not be breached, infracted, violated, transgressed, encroached, or trespassed upon by the federal congress/government. It's not that complicated
This is the great political blight of our country. It's why we're locked in perpetual decline and our government is perpetually sliding into tyranny. The federal govenrment is allowed to operate completely independently of its Constitutional trammels, which plainly state the federal congress may not infringe our right to bear arms. Not even at the president's request; especially at the president's request. Yet it does so all the time because the intended check upon this malfeasance, the people, are too immoral and incompetent to do their duty.
There's no mention in the Second Amendment of what a "majority" of the people, or congress, deem to be "reasonable" gun control. This omission isn't because those men didn't anticipate shifting opinion on the matter. Quite to the contrary it's precisely because they did. The Authors of the Bill of Rights deemed the right to bear arms integral to the preservation of freedom, and therefore sought through the Second Amendment (2A) to protect that right from the federal government.
Donald Trump wants the people disarmed for the same reason Democrats do.
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.Natural rights were never meant to be subject to infringement or revocation by a centralized all powerful national government in the United States. Anyone arguing otherwise fundamentally fails to grasp the purpose of the Bill of Rights, is dangerously ignorant, and a threat to us all.
Getting back to Trump. As stated throughout Trump's entire campaign (by me), the reason all three people in the above image have the same opinion on the matter, is because all three of them are the same. All three of them believe, erroneously and in violation of the Constitution, that the federal government should infringe upon the right to bear arms at the federal level; they merely disagree to what extent it should do so.
What is the purpose of raising the age requirement to own a rifle to 21, if not to infringe upon the right of 18, 19, and 20 year olds, all of which are allowed to bear arms in defense of the state, to bear arms for any other purpose by confining that right exclusively to volunteers or conscripts in service to the state? The same state that doesn't trust these people with an AR-15 for self-defense purposes, not only provides them with the fully automatic version of such, but expects them to use it if and when it needs enemies of the state killed. So according to Donald Trump and the Democrats, you shouldn't be able to have an AR-15 until you're 21 years old, but an 18 year old is competent enough to operate a 72 ton tank and fire its 120mm canon in defense of the state; the ARMY website stating it's an "entry level" position.
So, if you're 18 years old the state will trust you to operate a mobile fortress with a canon attached, but that same state does not trust you to operate and fire a 7 lb rifle that essentially fires projectiles comparable in size to that of BB guns. 3 times more people die in automobile accidents than die to gun homicide, but one need be only 16 to operate an automobile. Donald Trump claims he was moved to act by pictures of Nikolas Cruz's victims, but no less graphic imagery of what takes place in America's racist genocidal eugenics programs abound, yet Planned Parenthood remains funded. There's something egregiously wrong with this paradigm. If the right to bear arms is to be raised to 21, then so should the age of adulthood, and eligibility for entry into the armed services. But it won't be. Because the goal is reduce freedom, not the number of armed servants of the state.
So let it be clearly understood. The reason that all three have the same position, the Socialist position, is because all three are Socialists. If you don't understand that it's because you're utterly blinded by ignorance. The difference between a Constitutional Conservative and a Socialist, is not whether you believe the age to own a gun should be 18 or 21. It's whether you agree with the Constitutional disposition in regard to whether or not the federal government may regulate firearms. If you think it can't you're a Constitutional Conservative (on that issue). If you think it can and should you are a Socialist. Period.
As I asked on my social media when this story first broke. Where are all the Republican "freedom fighters" that so loved to point out the inconsistencies, contradictions, and logical fallacies for 8 years under Obama? Where have they gone? Why can't I find them? I thought they "supported our troops." So why is that an 18 year old can take up arms in defense of his country for two years, and be discharged without the right to self-defense at 20 years of age, if Democrat Don has his way?
When asked if his proposed gun legislation addressed the age limit, to which he responded it did not, Republican Senator Pat Toomey was told by Trump, "You know why, because you’re afraid of the NRA." Which is essentially a verbatim regurgitation of rhetoric previously dispensed by the Obama White House.
'"They won’t do anything about it because they’re scared of the NRA,' Obama’s top spokesman added. 'That’s shameful.'"
If Donald Trump is dispensing rhetoric on gun control identical to an Obama spokesman, then what does that make him if not an Obama spokesman? And what should we call a man, arguing for the suspension of liberty without due process, if not a tyrant?
You're reading that right. It's not a typo. An allegedly pro-2A, pro-NRA, Republican president said "I like taking the guns early." We'll worry about due process later. So the Republican president's position on the 2A, is Revoke rights today and worry about due process later. You know, like they did in Soviet Russia. Because "second" in this context means later, and later really means never, as the whole point of due process is precisely to prevent Trump doing what he's describing; the state suspending/revoking the liberties of its citizens based upon arbitrary grounds.
This notion you can take away due process and give it back later is farcical. You either have it or you don't, and if the state can arbitrarily suspend your rights, you don't. But Trump's idiotic rambling reveals, as it so often does, that he has absolutely no idea what the hell he's talking about. He's either an imbecile just telling people what they want to hear, or a calculating subversive deliberately facilitating the establishment of a police state, in which the state may "take the guns early" in order to prevent potential future crimes that haven't actually taken place (and may in fact never take place).
Every time I see and hear things like this, my mind goes back to 2002's Minority Report. If you've never seen that film you should see it now; it has a disturbing degree of relevance to present day events. Because that's where we're heading, only without the benefit of precognitives. Our prosecution of future crime is and will be predicated purely upon subjective (and often egregiously biased) conjecture, intended purely to pacify the fears of a timorous populace eternally looking to the state to protect it from the monsters both real and imagined, and surrendering ever more liberty to confer upon it perpetually more agency to that end.
Trump's position being wholly leftist in origin and nature, is naturally equally senseless to theirs, as he wants to raise the age requirements to buy AR-15s to 21 when most gun crime is committed with hand guns (which already require being 21 to purchase) and not AR-15s; proving unequivocally that the purpose of the legislation Trump's proposing is to incrementally disarm yet more Americans. The "arm teachers" rhetoric is a flagrant ruse.
Based upon information readily available to me, there are approximately 3.1 million pubic school teachers (approximately 1% of the population) in the U.S. Conversely there are approximately 10 million people aged 18-20 (approximately 3.5% of the population). So apparently Trump's angle to impose gun control, is to ostentatiously dispense rhetoric about arming teachers as a means of distracting dimwitted GoP voters from the fact he wants to take that right away from everyone 18-20, which would result in stripping 7 million people of the right to bear arms. The arm teachers rhetoric will allow Trump to continue marketing himself as "pro-gun," while advancing unconstitutional gun control legislation which disarms millions more people than stand to benefit, most of whom Trump knows would likely choose not to exercise that right even were it available to them. So, realistically, we could be talking about disarming millions, under the pretext of arming thousands.
And GoP voters passed on two of the most Conservative candidates in our lifetimes, one of which defended the 2A in front of the Supreme Court, for Trump.
And how are Trump voters responding to this betrayal? By feigning complete ignorance of Trump's flagrant penchant for contradiction and duplicity.
"I think Republicans in the room and certainly Republicans around the country were a bit shocked to see and hear what the president was suggesting." - Tom Bevan, Real Clear Politics.Why would they be "shocked," Tom? Being "shocked" requires that something be hitherto unknown and/or unknowable. And that's not the case.
Donald Trump was openly parroting Obama's rhetoric on gun control regarding the No Fly List during his campaign just as he is now.
Both under the pretext of giving law enforcement the tools to help them protect us from these potential maniacs lurking around every corner. And this isn't an isolated incident. There was red flag, after red flag, after red flag as Trump repeatedly took the Democrat position on issues during his campaign. I know because I broached and illustrated such ad nauseam on my social media.
Don't let them deceive you. Trump voters got precisely what they wanted. They wanted a president "close" to Chuck Schumer and that's what they got. Both Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer support gun control. Both Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer think congressmen refuse to pass gun control because they're "scared of the NRA." Yet, if you're a Trump voter, only one of these men is held accountable for their naked assault upon our liberty.
I will not allow these people to (just like Democrats) escape any culpability for their part in this. Trump voters did this to us. If any Democrat was saying and doing what Trump is currently doing, they would be declared an enemy of freedom and America by the GoP pundits and constituency. So why should we not acknowledge Trump voters as the same? Because they didn't know? As illustrated clearly they did know he was a liar and fraud. They simply chose to ignore that because they saw personal benefit in doing so. And since when has ignorance been cause for commutation for them? Show me the Trump voter that would accept Hillary "not knowing" she may not keep classified documents on a private email server as grounds for absolution.
The less benighted among you will read this and wonder how did this happen? I'll tell you how it happened. This happened because Republicans wanted a "businessman" and "job creator" instead of a Constitutionalist and defender of freedom for president. And when given a choice between the two, they overwhelmingly told the latter to go to hell. An intelligent, rational person, would naturally think a Constitutionalist would be the best choice for the office of chief enforcer of the Constitution. But not Trump voters. They wanted a government that ensures jobs instead of freedom, estranged to the fact the former comes at the expense of the latter. Every Jew in a concentration camp, and every slave on a plantation, had a job. Neither had freedom. But it was jobs, not freedom, Trump voters wanted guaranteed (i.e., provided) by the state; a glaring indication of their dependency upon and serfdom to the state.
And when they're not feigning ignorance, they're doing something much worse. Defending him.
So here you see sentiment typical of Trump voters. You see people proclaiming we need to fight for our rights by defending a man openly attacking them; you know, just like Democrats with Obama or Hillary. We need to take up arms in defense of a man trying to deny millions of Americans the right to bear arms.
And Trump frankly should be impeached. And it should be the Republicans that do it. He initially sought to impose his anti-gun agenda through the DoJ, instructing Jeff Sessions to see to its implementation, which circumvents congress and is a direct violation of his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Which explicitly states "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Not most of the legislative power. Not some of the legislative power. Not a little bit of the legislative power. "ALL" legislative powers shall be vested in Congress. Not Donald Trump. Not the DoJ.
Has anyone else noticed how GoP voters have no problem acknowledging naked assaults upon our liberty by Democrats, but naked assaults upon our liberties by Trump are construed as brilliant "strategies" serving some highly nuanced anti-Democrat purpose, that we're all just too stupid to understand instead? And we have a duty to allow Trump to impose these measures or we're not "patriotic." Trump's remarks aren't the insipid ravings of an aspiring despot openly proclaiming his intent to strip his subjects of due process. He's doing it for us, as part of some scheme (known only to Trump) to stick it to the Democrats, in the minds of Trump voters and GoP shills. It's inconceivable to these mindless party loyalists that maybe the scheme is to help the Democrats disarm us.
I mean, how could that be? Donald Trump is a Republican. And Republicans would never work with Democrats to screw us all. Right?
Garbage like this is why I no longer have any respect for party shills like Rush. They openly acknowledge Trump's duplicity, and that he's a manipulator, all the time. But their mindless partisan prejudice only allows them to see it in one direction. They'd rather go down with the ship and take us all with them, than admit the failings of their own party, making them no different than Democrats.
The reality is these tyranny facilitating halfwits would rather lose the Second Amendment than lose an election to the Democrats, incessantly arguing we need to forfeit a small degree of liberty today by voting for leftist Republicans, to stave off losing a larger degree of such under a Democrat. (Never mind voting Republican routinely results in the same outcome anyway.) They cannot seem to grasp the cumulative nature of the problem, and how the losses that occur under the "lesser of two evils" simply combine with larger ones that occur under the greater evil (just as rain drops coalesce into a flood), to become part and parcel of the operations of the same totalitarian state.
Trump voters thought he'd get Democrats to support things no other Republican could, when in reality the Democrats knew he'd get Republicans to support things no avowed Democrat could, and no genuine Conservative would. Someone tell me how the hell this would have been any different under Hillary? At least there would have been unified opposition due to partisan prejudice under a Hillary administration. Conversely with Trump GoP representatives will be under significant pressure to cave to Trump's demands, to remain in the good graces of Trump supporters who are "Pro-Trump" (as opposed to pro-Constitution), come election time. All the matters is a good economy and everyone having a job. If everyone has a job there will be no need to rob and steal anymore, and thus no robbers and thieves against which we need defend ourselves. We won't need guns anymore in Trump's economic Utopia you see.
And speaking of Hillary. Has anyone else noticed Trump voters have no problem with Melania Trump remaining married to a notorious serial philanderer for personal benefit (something for which Republicans have trashed Hillary Clinton for decades)? Now you're a good wife doing your patriotic duty if you stay with an adulterous husband.
We see in Trump supporters an abject vindication of Hamilton's admonition.
"It is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." - Federalist #25.This is precisely what you see in both of the major parties. Far from remaining vigilant, both are reduced to abject political and civic apathy any time their party's guy is in office, under the rationale that they need only fear the other party's guy. So at any given time you have a majority of the populace essentially giving their representatives carte blanche to do as they please, creating a culture of zero accountability in governance in which elected officials operate free of any meaningful scrutiny from their constituents, who simply trust them to do what's in their best interest (and most of whom never even both to check otherwise). None of them can be relied upon to challenge their own representatives, as in their minds to do so would only serve to benefit the other party, resulting in them either turning a blind eye to or defending abject malfeasance within their own party.
They will of course deny this. The people in these two parties would have you believe there is some great irreconcilable difference between them. But I tell you the difference between them is no different than the difference between people who prefer Coke or Pepsi. Both love soda (Socialism), they just differ on which brand they prefer, based upon purely subjective preference for the taste of one over the other. They recognize the labels of both but couldn't tell you a single ingredient of either. As such you can substitute Coke (Republican) with Pepsi (Democrat, e.g., Trump) and most of them can't even tell the difference, and will actually deny their cup (party) is filled with Pepsi should you inform them that's the case. "I know what Coke tastes like!" they'll retort. But they don't know anything. That's how we got here. If they knew the taste of Pepsi they'd have spat Trump out mere months into his campaign. But they didn't, and they're still not. They're all still drinking Pepsi in a Coke can, and telling everyone else how much better it is than Pepsi.
And this is just the "gun" stuff. I'm not even addressing numerous other instances of Trump's contradiction, hypocrisy, and adopting flagrantly leftist rhetoric and positions. Like being "open" to a mileage tax on automobiles.
Just like a Democrat.
Trump voters should be called gun grabbers, just like Democrats, because they voted for one, just like Democrats. And they knew they were voting for a leftist; indeed they overwhelmingly preferred and wanted the most left leaning Republican available to them; manifest in long time Clinton associate Donald Trump.
I called it a long time ago.
"It's true, what they say. There is a 'revolution' occurring in the Republican party, and Donald Trump is its leader. And that revolution is, perhaps more than any other thing, directed against Christian decorum. The "establishment" against which Trump's supporters are revolting is the Christian society. The revolution they wage, is not against the state (as their candidate has supported it his entire life), but against God himself, as a wayward people rally to an unrepentant profligate who openly states he shall govern by arbitrary decree.
I defended this man when first he entered the fray. But having observed awhile I now see the truth of his nature. I repent, O' Lord, that I ever sullied myself by standing under his banner whatever. He who commenced his endeavor a warrior for the people, is now plainly a thespian pouring nectar in their ears, and has revealed himself an incipient tyrant gestating before our eyes; dispensing with pretense and clawing at his amnion ever more aggressively as he senses his birth nearing.
He will burst forth into the world, gnash his umbilical, and turn upon and consume those which bore him." - Me, March 5, 2016.So in closing, I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. Before Conservatives can save America from the Democrats, they must first save it from the Socialist Republicans pretending they're saving us from the Socialist Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment