Is the 1st Amendment more dangerous than the 2nd? Media Vs. Guns

“Now that I have your attention, I will now trick you and deceive you into thinking the way I want to further my agenda that my cooperate friends are pushing.”

Now if every news report would start with a disclaimer like that, at least it would have at least a little honesty about the report.  Its no secret that news organizations have agendas that seem to lean a little (or a lot) to the left.  There used to be a saying “If it Bleeds, it Leads”.  Back then, it was a little more honest straight forward journalism.  They would report the facts that they new.  It was the Tabloids that would stretch the truth to sell.  Now it seems that the “Main Stream Media” has turned into the tabloids of old.  In some cases even worse.

There was a story a number of years ago by NBC News Dateline, that was an investigative report about “Exploding” Chevy trucks.  These were the old ’73-’87 pickup trucks that had their gas tanks mounted outside the frame rails.  There were some reports that if they were hit in the side, they would burst into flames so bad that the driver would be killed.  So Dateline took it upon themselves to test this.  Now, I would use the word “test” loosely.  Because, when they conducted their test, the trucks tank would leak, but they would not “burst” into flames as they reported.  So, NBC decided to “help” get the desired results.  They added a feature to their test trucks, that all the other trucks didn’t have.  An igniter to the fuel tank.  This way, they could make the video to “prove” that these trucks were deadly.  So, in fact they cheated.  Now, so how much damage did this story cause?  It forced General Motors to offer to “buy back” these trucks.  All because a news program doctored a test to fit their agenda to make a car manufacturer look bad.

Now what is interesting about this story, is that NBC did get caught.  But, by then it was too late.  The damage had been done.  Now you ask, what does this have to do with the 2 Amendment?  How often do you hear about a person was shot and killed?  Or a police officer shot someone (often noting the race of the officer and the deceased). The media is now automatically painting the shooting as race motivated and that the officer is at fault.  You rarely hear about the justifiable self defense shooting by both police and legal gun owners.

In Ferguson Missouri an officer was forced to defend himself.  The media reported before all the facts were known that the officer killed an unarmed man, that happened to be of a different  race.  Saying that it was racially motivated.  This started riots.  Death threats against the police.  The media is who fueled this.  Media is reporting before they know all the facts.  Even the politicians are guilty of this.  Obama’s “Travon Martin could have been my son” and the Minnesota Governor saying that the officer involved shooting in Falcon Heights MN was because of race.  Governor Dayton said that if the driver was white, he would still be alive.  By the way, this shooting is still being investigated.  Just this past weekend, there was an officer involved shooting in Milwaukee.  They rioted for 2 straight days, burning business’.  The media again tried to spin this as “poor minorities are being target by the racist police”.  In fact, both the felon and the cop were both black.  And by the way, the felon was armed with a gun at the time.  But to the media, this does not matter.

The media is fueling the race tensions, fueling the distrust and hatred of the police.  The media is fueling the violence.  All the while the media says that there is no such thing as a defensive gun use by the legal, law abiding gun owners.  That guns are evil, and if there were no guns, then all this violence would magically disappear.

The media lies to make money.  Plain and simple.  Who every gets the biggest story, gets the biggest ratings, gets the biggest paycheck.  Truth does not matter anymore to them, as long as they get paid.  The media uses the 1st Amendment as their defense of their reporting while saying that we should gut the 2nd Amendment to “save lives”.

So I ask again.. Which is more dangerous, the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment?

Preparing for a President Clinton

In my previous post,( Link) I talked about what could happen if Hillary wins the presidency.  Now lets talk about what can we do to prepare.  If Hillary wins, all is not lost.  We can still fight for our rights that are recognized in the Constitution. You probably want to see how.  The best example is to look at the what has happened during the Obama administration.  For the most part, gun rights expanded.  (It was not for a lack of trying by Obama.)  Not so much at the federal level, but at the state level.  Now its at the state level that we feel the impacts the most.  It is also at the state level that you and me can do the most to fight for these rights.  This is how all 50 states and D.C. has carry laws. Not all are great, but they do have carry laws.  New York and California, being the liberal strongholds they are, being the exceptions to expanding gun rights.  We have also seen Obama use every tactic open to him to try to push for more restrictions, including Executive Orders, that for the most part failed to do anything.

So what do we need to do?  We need to keep fighting at the local level, the state level.  Even if Hillary does win, we must keep electing “Pro-rights” legislators to office.  We must work with the state level rights groups.  The NRA is the big kid on the playground at the national level.  But its the state level groups that are lobbying at the state level that is doing the most to keep your rights and also expand on those rights.  I have mentioned in previous posts about working, and volunteering with these state groups.   You can see that post here (Link)  In Minnesota, GOCRA is one such group that is making a big difference.

Now, there is something else you will need to prepare for.  Ammo Shortage.  The last two elections, after Obama won, there was a run on ammo like we have never seen before.  People will be “Panic Buying” causing a shortage.  During his second term win, there were months that it was difficult to find the common calibers like 9mm and .223.  If you have been paying attention, and learning from the past, you probably have been stocking up over the last year while ammo has been easier to find.  I really hope you have been doing this.  Semi-Auto rifles are another area where we may see a shortage happen again.  If there are any hints that Hillary would push another “Assault Weapons” ban, people will be buying up the AR15s and the AK-47 variants.  This also happened four years ago.  Now I am not suggesting to go out and buy a few AR15s, but my big suggestion is make sure you have spare parts.  This is an area that the democrats may target and in fact Obama is NOW targeting.  He is going after the gun smiths with Executive Order.

Gun owners make up one of the largest groups in this country.  We cross gender and race boundaries.  We also cross sexual-orientation and age boundaries.  Working together, with groups like GOCRA, we can make a stand.

What if Hillary Clinton wins, what then?

With the recent polls and what appears to be miss-steps by Trump, Hillary may win.  What then?  She has repeatedly stated that Gun control is a priority for her.  So lets speculate what we may be facing.
How will the country react to a President Hillary Clinton?  What will she truly pursue after election?  Will Congress be able to contain her?  So I am going to play a little “What if”.
If Clinton holds true to her word (something she does not do well) she will push for Gun Control.  She has stated that the Heller decision by the Supreme Court was wrong.  She favors “Assault weapons ban” and even says she would like to see an “Australian Style” gun buyback / gun ban.  I believe that all of these are possible under her administration.  Especially that she will be responsible for at least 1 Supreme Court appointment.
What if Heller were to be reversed?   This would effectively reverse all the “pro-gun” changes to the state of Illinois and D.C.  They could again have a carry ban.  I see that other states like California, Washington and New York push for more restrictions.
What if the Supreme Court reinterpreted the 2nd Amendment?  With a liberal leaning Supreme Court, we may see challenges to the 2nd Amendment.  They could interpret that “Militia” actually means solders of the Armed Forces.  Effectively making civilian gun ownership illegal, let alone carry laws.
 What if congress pushes for more gun control?  Congress could be turned more liberal after this election.  New gun control legislation would be a certainty.  This is where the “Australian Style” gun ban / confiscation would occur.   Also they could make an Amendment to the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
That last two is worse case scenario.  No legal civilian gun ownership.  How would Americas estimated 150 million legal gun owners(who own over 300 million guns) react now being asked to turn in their guns?  We can look at the “Assault weapon” registration attempt of New York and Connecticut for a clue.  Less than 10% complied with registering their rifles.  So knowing this would fail to get the “dangerous” illegal guns off the street, they would have to literally come and take them.  Forcibly.
So I ask, how do you think 150 million gun owners would react to having their guns forcibly taken from them?  Personally, I believe that this would be bloody if they attempted this.  Also, don’t forget that a good percentage of that 150 million gun owners are our police and deputies.  I really do not see local law enforcement going door to door taking your guns.  Most Sheriffs are pro-gun rights.
So being the realistic guy that I am, lets look at what is “likely” to happen with a President Clinton.  A liberal Supreme Court would happen. No doubt there.  I think that Heller would be challenged and reversed.  There could be a challenge to define “Militia”.  This I see as possible, but less likely.  I do see congress reintroduce gun control legislation. Background check changes are likely. Realistically, I do not see a new ban unless the democrats win seats in a land slide.  Repealing the 2nd Amendment has little to no chance of passing.  Too many in congress are aware of the repercussions to go there.  As for the “Australian Style” confiscation, has a little chance, better than repealing the 2nd Amendment, but unlikely.  Again, I believe that any forced confiscation would lead ultimately to civil war.
Something else that is a safe bet.  Gun sales will be through the roof for the next 6-12 months.  We could see another run on ammunition as gun owners stock up.  Some of these owners will be preparing for the worst.  They may have the best chance to survive a worst case scenario.
Heed my words folks, a President Clinton would start where Obama left off.  All of our rights recognized by the constitution are in jeopardy with president this progressive in office.

The Liberal reasoning for gun control and not supporting Police?

The Democratic Gun control / security platform has me a little curious.

  1.  They have openly stated they would like an Australian style gun control.  i.e. Gun buyback and very restrictive civilian gun ownership.
  2.  Not backing of local law enforcement.  Parading around with the families of the thugs that attacked police and lost their lives while not doing the same for the families of the officers that thugs have killed.
  3. Not taking a serious stand against the Radical Islamist terrorists.  They have been calling it “Gun Violence” instead of the radical religion trying to kill us.

So on the surface, it appears that they want civilians not to be able to protect themselves, the police to be less effective at protecting the innocent.  So in theory, the thugs and terrorists are more protected than the legal civilians.  We all know that the thugs and terrorists would still be armed as only the law abiding would ever turn over their guns because the law said so.

OK, so this leads me to this question.  Why?  What is the end game?  This is where we will have to start theorizing a bit.  If you disarm the public, make Police less effective, what’s left?  The federal Government.  They would still be fully armed.  In fact, they have been arming up for the last few years.  Remember the stories about the IRS and EPA buying huge amounts of ammo?  This could be a push for a federal-only police force.  Imagine not seeing police, but Homeland Security instead.

Now for the “tin foil” hat crowd, let’s take this a step further.

Now for more speculation.  A few years ago, there was an executive action that would allow the president and select executive branch officials to take total control of the government in the event of martial law.  This would even suspend the constitution and the bill of rights.

So now to put it all together.

  • Australian style gun control means no armed resistance to a federal power grab.
  • No local law enforcement means no resistance to a federal power grab.
  • Implementation of martial law means no more constitutional protected freedoms.

Now the federal government has total control of our economy and its workforce.  So basically total control of the citizens.  Welcome to Communism i.e. Hell.