A Russian woman was embalmed alive when doctors unwittingly put her on a formaldehyde-based drip instead of a saline during a surgery, according to a report Sunday. Ekaterina Fedyaeva, 27,…
According to police in Masury, Ohio, Kenneth Evans, 24, “was highly intoxicated and his mood was rapidly shifting” when he was arrested. His mug-shot might have been taken during the happy mood swing. Evans is charged with hitting his girlfriend in the face with pizza.
View original post 401 more words
As I have posted before the gun debate is pretty simple. From what I’ve read from the Federal Papers and The Constitutional Convention, and other historical stuff. It is pretty clear that the founders had written the Second Amendment to give rights to the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. At that time in history they knew first hand how life was under tyrannical rulers. It was still fresh in their minds of the inquisitions and being punished for being heretics. Along with the taxation issues surrounding the French and Indian war that was very costly for England. They also believed in rights given by the creator that were inalienable. Natural or God’s law played a big part in how they constructed and written the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Much of the foundation of the forming of the U.S. had to do with religious freedom. The Pilgrims came, the Puritans came, and the debtors came with hope to escape the oppression they faced across the pond. Not much different than when the Protestants broke away from the church.
Getting back to the second amendment the founders believed we had the inalienable right to defend ourselves. It didn’t have to do with muskets or any other made up fantasy of having primitive weapons. They relied on people understanding the personal responsibilities that comes with having the freedoms we are supposed to have.
Reading some recent information of the language used surrounding well regulated. They used well regulated in a lot of areas that did not mean regulated, as in, regulated by the government. Well regulated meant to be well organized, or to have yourself or your life well organized. Similar to how the definition of being liberal and progressive have changed completely. Now we refer to, and make distinction of being liberal, or classically liberal.
The definition of Liberal is, open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. The structure of todays left does not fit this definition because it’s based in Marxism, Socialism, and Maoist leftism. The same about being progressive being favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas, or favoring and promoting change or innovation. The left in todays society have neither of these qualities. They seem to be okay with it when you agree with or promote their narrative though. Heaven forbid you disagree with a modern liberal you get called so many isms it isn’t funny.
It goes the same way on the right that are dug into their belief systems as well. As for the recent events surrounding the recent Parkland shooting and the YouTube shooting, what happened there?
In the first scenario, you have a mentally disturbed individual who hand the police, FBI, the government in general fail to do anything. Upwards of 45 calls to this individuals house, nothing done. Two calls to have this individual to be adjudicated to be committed, again, nothing done. The FBI failed to follow protocols and procedures to deal with the threat. By their own admission.
Then we get the knee jerk reaction to ban AR-15’s. And people start protesting to have their rights taken away. There is nothing special about an AR 15. It is just a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable box magazine. Like many other platforms of rifles that have detachable box magazines. There is nothing special about it’s ammunition. If it is chambered in 5.56x45mm. You are basically in the realm of a .223 with respective difference to load. This round does not have any magical powers to tumble or any other fallacy being spread about this weapon. It is not a weapon of war as some claim either. Having the accessories that the AR has does not make it any more dangerous or lethal. Like most firearms they can be accessorized to fit a multiple set of needs for the weapon of choice you desire to use for the situation or task at hand. Th AR is only a tool to perform a specific function like any other tool. Personally, I do not care for AR 15’s, I have other platforms I prefer over the AR for home defense and/or hunting, and target shooting. I don’t particularly care for Glocks either, but that is another discussion.
What is an assault weapon? Technically anything you can pick up and assault someone with. Let your imagination run wild. The last stats I looked at rifles only consisted of 285 deaths. Knives were used in 1,490 deaths. Slighty over 7,000 deaths by handguns. Number one deaths from information from the CDC from ages 1-44 is unintentional injuries Here’s a link to the CDC Chart. Even the CDC Study Obama ordered didn’t fit his narrative about firearms. That’s why he didn’t use it. It actually showed firearms preventing thousands of crimes. 3,000 to 4,000 if memory serves me right.
Now on to the YouTube Shooter, it headed south and hasn’t really made anymore headlines since it didn’t fit the narrative of the left. Being some right wing neo-nazi KKK Confederate flag waving white dude. It turned out to be some Iranian vegan looney animal rights activist with an ax to grind over YouTubes asinine monetization policies. Which most, if not all of the recent shooters have been left leaning butthurt loons.
Dylan Roof fell through the cracks. Background checks didn’t catch him like they should have. The government and the system failed to deal with Cruz in Parkland. The Youtube shooters brother and father reported her and communicated that she hated YouTube and was possibly on her way there to do something. The Virginia Tech shooter was supposed to have been adjudicated and he was supposed to have had his weapons confiscated or relinquished, another government failure.
So, on with the protest to ban your rights. Did they blame the gun when Kennedy was assassinated? Why would you want to ban an inanimate object and rely on the government to protect you when it has blatantly failed you many times over on multiple issues. Is it inherently due to the need we feel to pass the blame onto something or someone else? Do you honestly think if you are in your right mind to give up the right to defend yourself? Especially when I see and hear threats from the gun grabbers to inflict bodily harm or death to force me to give up my weapons? It’s not the guns, knives, hammers, cars, trucks, or any other weapon people chose to use to kill people. There are evil people out there. Always have been and always will be.
We need to look at the source and causation of what is driving these people to do these heinous acts. London has higher crime statistics than New York. They ban guns, and just about banned knives too. UK Knife laws can be found here.
We really need to address the social and moral degradation of society. Instead of blaming inanimate objects. Do we blame automobiles or the auto manufacturers for drunk driving deaths? 40,000 last year. Do we blame hammer manufacturers for deaths caused by them and blunt force trauma?
We already had an assault weapons ban and there was a ten year study on the effects it had on crime. It didn’t work then, why would it work now? If you’d like to dig through the FBI UCR statistics you can find them here.
And after digging around about the march for our lives protests. It was very well organized by gun control advocates and big money. From what I found it cost over 5 million dollars to have the march in Washington. It wasn’t organized by the students. They were used and exploited off of their tragedy by the gun control advocates. Just like every time a shooting takes place that fits the narrative to ban so called assault weapons. It’s a boogey man.
The media also plays a big role in these shootings by exploiting these lunatics and sensationalizing the events the feeds into their psyche to be infamous to go down in history in flames. And the medias thirst to be first instead of accurately reporting facts when they come in. They’ve jumped the shark more often than not during these tragedies. Knowing full well that even if the information they put out people are going to buy it. And the inaccurate reporting is hard to undo after the fact. People tend to believe what they feel tends to be true. Most of the media utilize this to their advantage.
The imperial evidence I have found with statistics and other sources and individuals who live and breath this stuff does not fall in favor with the gun control crowd and what rhetoric they spout.
I don’t really have much to say about this other than whatever has gotten in the way of writing anything or posting. With time constraints and life getting in the way has been an issue.
I plan to blog about the recent arguments over the gun control debate soon.
I need to get some more videos up on my YouTube channel. So if you haven’t checked that out and like to see some of the projects I get into please feel free to check it out. I was kind of perturbed at YouTube for their changes in monetization. Oh well, shit happens.
Have a good one, thanks for reading.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan sent shockwaves through Washington yesterday by ruling that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton will be subject to discovery on whether they intentionally violated federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. The case opens up another front for Clinton who is facing rising criticism over her decision to exclusively use her own private server for communications as Secretary of State — a decision that gave her control over her email system but exposed classified information to interception. The State Department supplied a secure system for her use but Clinton opted not to use that system. Over 1,700 emails on Clinton’s private email system have been classified (22 at the highest level of “top secret”). While Clinton insists that the information was not…
View original post 471 more words
One of the points I consistently try to get across in my writings and talks is that international terrorism is a good deal more complicated than most portrayals of it would have you believe. In many movies — and official presentations too, since governments often leave interesting details out of what they tell the public — there’s a shadowy group of bad guys bent on blowing something up, and it’s up to the good guys (cops and/or spooks) to stop them before they kill. Sometimes the case really is as simple as the Official Narrative portrays it, but often it’s not.
A couple days ago I explained how a terrorist group in Turkey called Tawhid-Salam, which is behind several attacks and assassinations in recent years, is really a wholly owned subsidiary of Iranian intelligence. It serves as a cut-out for the notorious Pasdaran, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is…
View original post 2,079 more words
Mirsad Bektašević (2005)
I recently wrote about the jihad in Bosnia. This much-neglected aspect of the war in the 1990s was crucial in shaping al-Qaeda, and global jihadism more broadly, providing this movement, and Clerical Iran, with a staging post in Europe, not least because Tehran’s spy-terrorist capabilities had been deployed to bring many of the jihadists into the country and train them in the first place. While Islamist militancy and terrorism were brought to Bosnia largely as imports, their entry was facilitated by the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), the ruling party to this day. While the war itself trained many jihadist “graduates,” almost all of whom were allowed to stay (or at least received Bosnian passports that gave them that right), the entry of extremist charities/missionaries to lead the rebuilding, many of them bankrolled by Saudi Arabia, entrenched…
View original post 1,835 more words