Maurice: A creation of Democrats and a problem only guns can solve

Here’s another case, this Maurice Hill from Philadelphia where police were serving a warrant to him for multiple crimes, and he just opened fire on them injuring 6 officers. Nobody was killed, but that didn’t stop gun control advocates to use this shooting as yet another opportunity to alter the Second Amendment. Only what they ignore is that Hill was a hardened criminal with an extensive history of crimes on gun violations, drugs, DUIs, aggravated assaults and even launting a police animal. As many have said since his arrest including President Trump, this Maurice Hill loser should have never have been on the streets, yet he was. So how exactly would more gun control laws have helped with this situation? Hill was a criminal, was he just suddenly going to obey the law and turn in his guns that were not obtained legally—because he was a criminal.

Of course, the answer is no. The grab for guns by politicians is only for cosmetic reasons. Now that guns are invented, they will always be available to someone somewhere. The problem that the law-abiding public has is how do they defend themselves from such characters when they decide to wield their menace upon us all with malice and sheer evil at a moments notice. What are we supposed to do, retreat and give them our life and possessions, and hope that a simple police force can bring justice to our circumstances in overcrowded courts and a generally apathetic legal system that would rather not be bothered? No, that’s not a good way to live. It’s nice to have police to keep most of the crazies in line, but there will always be people like Maurice Hill who are beyond any kind of criminal reform, but weren’t considered bad enough to lock up in a jail for extended periods of time, because we just don’t have the room for them in jail. And so long as that condition exists there will always be dangers to us all as they roam the streets that no law can protect us from.

Maurice was very much a creation of Democrat policies, illegal drug sales, bad neighborhoods filled with fatherless homes, a prison system that considers drugs a minor offense so even when he was in jail, it was only for 2 and a half years. In a good world Maurice would have been locked up. Many from outside the United States slander our prison system because we have so many inmates, but that is also the cost of a free society, some people just can’t handle it, and when they act against the freedoms of other people, they have to be removed from society. You don’t see these problems as much in other places in the world because those societies are nowhere near as free as what occurs in North America. There aren’t as many cultural opportunities to be a criminal like Maurice was. In his little neighborhood of Philadelphia he was big stuff, a big fish in a small pond, and that fueled his criminal intent. And we could say that most American cities have lots of Maurice types who will try to kill us on a moment’s notice over a loaf of bread, and when they do, we have to have prisons to put them in, or guns to defend ourselves from. Because they aren’t going away.

What’s ironic is that the same people who built Maurice also are the ones calling for gun control, as if anything they suggest would actually work. They have the audacity to suggest that if only we gave up our guns and submitted to background checks that people like this criminal would not have been such a threat. Or that if we had massive gun buy backs in the inner cities that we might get guns off the streets of places like Chicago and Philadelphia. But they would be wrong. Guns, especially in the hands of the most aggressive members of our society is clout, and nobody is going to give up their clout in criminal circles. If they don’t buy the guns from a legitimate dealer with at least some traceability, they’ll simply get them on the black market. And the more laws there are, the more regulation and taxation that is instilled in the industry, the blacker the market gets. As I’ve pointed out many, many times, Defense Distributed makes a great milling machine that can make your garage into a perfectly good machine shop that can manufacture AR-15s without any serial numbers. Guns will be with us forever; they are part of our modern world. So when bad guys have guns, good people also need them to defend themselves from criminal activity.

Police are not fast enough. To be honest Maurice Hill shouldn’t have even been able to be served a warrant. The real justice that we can’t even discuss is that someone should have taken care of the drug dealer a long time ago, since the legal system we do have couldn’t touch the guy. But since the good guys around Philadelphia were following the rules, nobody was going to stand up to Maurice and his thugs in that particularly bad neighborhood in Philly where drug dealing, and other crimes were as common as traffic lights. Because we had an environment there that did not support shoot outs in the streets between good guys and bad guys, the bad guys ruled the hen house. And that is the reality that nobody is addressing, especially gun grabbing liberals who breed people like Maurice with their insufficient policies and scandalous behavior.

Do we want a society that has shootouts in the streets between bad people and good people? Well, yes we do, because the option is to surrender our freedoms over to a government that either makes people like Maurice or worse, makes people who just don’t think much for themselves at all. When people castigate the wild west thinking that does occur in Western Civilization where free ideas clash sometimes violently, we need to understand that this is better than the option of just giving it all up for a totalitarian state such as what we see in China, or Venezuela for that matter. Freedom does spawn violence, because not everyone is equipped to deal with self-government. But that doesn’t mean that everyone should lose such a concept. Only that those who can’t need to be either locked up in jail or eliminated in the competitive environment that is Western Civilization. But we can’t take guns off the streets legally so that only people like Maurice have them to tyrannize everyone they encounter.

The solution is the opposite of gun control, not just in the situation with the drug dealing Maurice, but in all these mass shootings. While it’s true, we do have a dangerous society and violence is increasing. I would contend that the situation will get worse, largely because of the failures of liberal policies, especially in the inner cities of all American cities. There are Maurice types everywhere, they are a dime a dozen and the prison system simply can’t handle them. Liberal society has made too many of them. When Democrats say we must do something about people like this, I would say to them, stop making them. Stop breaking down families, stop supporting radical political ideas, stop feeding the growth of evil in society. Then and only then can anything be done to stop the violence. But until then, we need guns so that when those shoot outs in the streets happen, the right people win. That is the world we are living in.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

“Its Only A Flesh Wound”: The Dayton Mass Killer and his liberal, cocaine driven murders

OK, I’m happy to say I told you so dear reader. Within hours of the Dayton mass shooting rampage that has so many calling for gun control, we learned this week that the killer had cocaine in his body, he even had a bag of it on him at the time of his death after he was shot over 24 times by police, and he was on anti-anxiety medication combined with alcohol. Which is exactly what I had said happened knowing very little about the evidence at the time but understanding the condition of the murders. Yet we are supposed to believe that gun control would have averted the killings. And we are supposed to put our complete trust into a police force that put so many bullets into the dead body of the attacker that they actually shot some of the victims with their own bullets. The whole ordeal was actually and remains a mess. It was liberal philosophies that made the shooter who he was and it was state controlled law enforcement that obviously over reacted and put more people in danger due to their “training.”

The killer Betts had 52 gunshot wounds in his upper and lower torso. Many of them were exit wounds but think about it. More than twenty shots fired in any crowded area would be a potential for more people around the target to be injured, and at least 2 bullets struck other people. It is humorous that when explaining this to the public Police Chief Richard Beihl had to describe those wounds as “superficial wounds.” It kind of reminds me of the Monty Python movie The Holy Grail. “Its only a flesh wound.” Of course that police training entailed shooting at the subject so that so long as he was near his rifle that they had to keep pummeling him with rounds of fire and that each of those bullets would bounce off the pavement and be a potential projectile flying into innocent people running away from the crime. They had to make sure that Betts was dead. Ah, but they were under pressure, the police. After all, wouldn’t everyone panic under such a crises and hindsight is 20/20. Well, no, not everyone panics under those conditions.

Sure, there were lots of cops that were around late that night in Dayton patrolling the entertainment district and they engaged the shooter in 30 seconds. But with so many cops also comes the understanding that they all knew this guy was a mass killer who had just attacked people on their watch, and they wanted to make sure some of their bullets got into the body of him so they could claim credit for bringing an end to the carnage, by creating more carnage. 52 bullet holes, that is just out of control, and more about getting their name in the record books than actually stopping the crime. With so many police officers firing into the cocaine liberal Betts, nobody could have taken the next logical step and moved in to remove the weapon from the attacker while he was down, minimizing the risk to the area. I have argued and will continue to, that most CCW holders would have done a much better job and not let their adrenaline get the better of them, as the police obviously suffered from. A typical NRA member with a CCW would have been much calmer and created less carnage in stopping the bad guy.

But that’s not the story of the day, its all about how to detect mental health, and the gun control advocates desire to do background checks and have red flag laws. Would a red flag law prevented this liberal Elizabeth Warren supporter from smoking crack and mixing anti-depressant medicine with alcohol and who knows whatever else, then making a terrorist out of himself? I would argue that just calling oneself a Democrat is a kind of declaration of insanity. Should all Democrats be flagged as potential terrorists? I think historically speaking, we could make that case. Is that where all this is going? Because any time a mind is altered with intoxicants, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, anti-depressants even, they are all potential minds for becoming killers. Most of them won’t of course. But where do you draw the line?

Just like the cops that shot their guns over 24 times into a body within the confines of a crowded street, politicians show they have even less good judgment on the matter. Most of them want illegal drugs legalized so they can get the tax money for their giveaway projects, and they don’t want to consider what those intoxicants do to our society. Maybe everyone who drinks a beer or smokes marijuana should be “red flagged.” I could live without drinking or doing any drugs. I would much rather have a society of gun owners carrying them around in public than a bunch of drunken heathens intoxicated in their spare time and thinking about dumb things. The lessen here is that no politician, especially on the Republican side where they should be leading the way, is addressing the core problem—drugs cause mental depletion, so no mental health scan under normal conditions will root out a potential killer. And we certainly have seen from the FBI to the local law enforcement that they are only human, and they panic too under duress and they may shoot you just for being nearby. So is the proposal of more government patrolling the streets viable, no. Is more government doing background checks and administering red flag laws viable, no. Would an assault weapons ban work, so that government could be the only ones with high powered weapons there to serve politicians who have a lot to hide in the world. Absolutely not!

So what are we to do? Well, first of all, lets admit to ourselves that drugs are a problem and our government should not be endorsing the practice of intoxication—of any kind. People will still want to drink their beer and whatever, but we must stop promoting that activity as normal. And we certainly must understand that endorsing cocaine, depression medicine and marijuana will lead to a less safe society. We cannot give up the Bill of Rights so that people can just sit around and get wasted. I understand that the political class likes intoxicated people who can’t think, because it makes it easier to garner their vote. But the consequences are obvious, and this Betts killer was an obvious example of when such a situation goes wrong. I think a legitimate look into every mass killer would tell a similar story as Betts. He was obviously a clear-cut case, he was a liberal likely caught up in the modern antics of political theater, and being a drug user, had lost his ability to rationalize outcomes. So, he became a mass killer with the obvious hope that it would inspire gun control, which is why he used the high capacity magazine. He was after all supportive of gun control, and his natural aim of throwing his life away, and those of many others, was to force the issue. But all those thoughts are derived from insanity provoked by drug abuse. Given our current culture which accepts that condition, there is always the potential for countless killers to emerge. And until we deal with the drug use, no law created by anybody will stop them. Obviously, we can’t count on law enforcement to save us. Apparently to them, collateral damage is a perfectly acceptable criteria so long as they stop the mass shooters when they do appear.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

What’s Wrong with the Fox News Poll on Gun Control: Trying to position cable news for life after 2024 with smoke and mirrors

You can clearly see the influence of Suzanne Scott, the new CEO of Fox News regarding their recent poll on gun control released recently in the wake of two mass shootings that occurred within 24 hours of each other. Fox News has moved noticeably in a more liberal direction under her leadership as opposed to Roger Ailes. Knowing that liberal gun banners have sought to push an assault weapons agenda while the NRA is on its heels in internal struggles at the top of the organization to redirect their losses in the Russian hoax story and pull Trump toward gun control to split his base and weaken his power going into the 2020 election. Fox News was happy to play along being a New York based media company in the heart of progressive society, they have moved radically to the left and their poll on guns reflects this trend.

Their headline was that most of the people they polled back gun restrictions after the most recent shootings. They also aimed to show a slipping support for Trump and the NRA. Obviously Suzanne Scott’s staff in the boardroom of Fox News is looking beyond Trump’s presidency if not for 2020, because they will want the ratings bump they get from his campaign events, ultimately the cable news outlet need to figure out who they are after 2024 and they think the country is changing in a more liberal direction, that many of the heavily college debt driven young people will not care about guns, or even family, and will be more Bernie Sanders than Donald Trump in their economic and social thinking. Suzanne Scott is clearly not Roger Ailes, and it shows.

The big number in the Fox Poll is that they say two thirds of their contacts state that they would support an “assault weapons” ban which I think is highly unlikely. I would say that is something of a suppression poll similar to the type of polls that showed Hillary Clinton beating Trump in the general election or the ones that think Joe Biden will beat Trump head to head. The numbers may be accurate if you are taking your sampling at a local liberal college, but not if you were doing so in a steel factory or a competitive shooting event. Its not so much what the numbers say, it’s the kind of people that were polled. For instance, 100% of people polled in New York City would likely reflect the Fox News sample. They are already used to a non-gun culture and lots of progressive ideas. But in Eastern Ohio or Kentucky, the results would be much different.

The sampling itself was taken between August 11th through the 13th so the material broadcast by Fox and other networks was fresh on everyone’s mind and consisted of 1,013 registered voters, 222 by a land line and 791 by cell phones randomly selected for inclusion in the survey using a probability proportionate to the size method meaning the phone numbers for each state were proportional to the number of voters in each state. That means that by dividing the number of polled recipients by the number of states and not taking into account the nature of those states, the results would tend to lead toward a favorability of gun control anyway, which of course Fox News is pushing so that they can take credit for moving the needle on gun control during President Trump’s first term in office and changing the market demographic for that five year plan which takes place after 2024.

The big flaws are in conducting recipients who still have a land line, which is to say, most people these days have cut that cord a long time ago. Land line phone owners are not a good statistical sampling of the modern electorate. Its like saying to people who ride bicycles if they prefer that mode of transportation over a car. A land line owner is probably over 60 or they are very poor, and their opinions are radically shaped by current events, like within a week old. With all the news recently from traditional networks being all about gun control, it is not surprising that these types of people would be sympathetic to such an idea. Then of course there is the cell phone sampling, where only certain types of people answer their cell phone when a number they don’t recognize comes across their screen. Again, 791 people who answered their cell phone during an unusual call across 50 states is not a good sampling of gun control sentiment among real voters. The poll method is an old model that does not represent modern trends, and that is where the rubber hits the road in detecting the motive of this Fox News Poll.

Mostly, I would say that people who read here for instance are getting their news sourcing from Fox News over to Alex Jones, OAN or even Louder with Crowder on YouTube. There is a reason that many of these modern commentators who lean to the political right have been deplatformed from social media—it’s because that was never the plan from the left. They thought Facebook, Google and Twitter would push people to the left, instead it has given people on the right more of a voice and they are cutting their cords with Fox News and the cable companies that support them and turning to streaming online. The freedom of choice has gone in the wrong direction and this has particularly upset the Google radicals who thought they understood the game.

Fox News viewers really aren’t that impressive, and they dominate the other networks by having 2.3 million viewers between the hours of 8-11 PM each night. The YouTube channel of Steven Crowder is on par with those numbers and that is just one lone personality. Given the impact of talk radio, blog sites like this one, and alternative media such as Alex Jones on his own website that is still pulling in impressive numbers despite all the effort there has been to stop him. There isn’t any real polling coming out of those audiences and it is there that the real sentiment on gun control rests. Fox News tried to have a poll by doing what they understand in an industry that is dying and they are trying to sell that off as a fact. But its just a poll taken from backwards derelicts who are out of touch with reality and are by their very nature the products of the modern news cycle for which they provide the content. But that content does not represent reality.

The shocker is that even with the Fox News poll trying to pain the picture that a majority of Americans support gun control, which they don’t, the real trick is in trying to get Republicans to play ball with Democrats to give a legislative victory that they can run on in 2020. By puffing up their feathers at Fox News with what they hope the President will be suckered into supporting, they are trying to shape policy from a New York perspective that goes against the rest of the nation, that secretly support Trump through new media. If Fox News could do that they fantasize, they may survive in the marketplace beyond 2024 because it will take the wind out of the sales of all the new media out there that is beating the crap out of traditional media. And that is where the real fight is. There is no appetite for gun control from real voters, because they see the game. But the establishment is trying to shape opinion at a critical time while they still can. Hopefully, the President won’t fall for it.

But if he does, he does. It won’t change reality.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

The Political Left has Ignored Our Laws on Illegal Immigration: Why would we obey their laws on gun control?

Democrats are all about compelling us to do things, which is the real reason they are so supportive of gun control and there is currently an assault weapons ban floating around the House. Take the bartender turned congresswoman and socialist activist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her opinions on the media company Barstool Sports where the owner Tweeted that he’d fire any of his employees on the spot who tried to unionize. Of course, we know now that unions, all unions, are concepts of Karl Marx and have their foundations firmly in socialist ideas, and they assume that company ownership should always be shared with the workers. That is part of their philosophy on the whole socialism versus capitalism argument, that common everyday workers who don’t work very hard at life can run a company through democratic consensus instead of hard work and risk taking.

When the owners of Barstool Sports made his declaration against a unionized workforce, he was of course appalled that such a concept would seek to take away the ownership of his company and place its management among the workers, which is a real slap in the face. And to make matters worse Cortez stated that he was likely breaking the law for which the Department of Labor rigorously defends. Government unions especially can defend the poor performance of their members such as they did with the two prison guards who let Jeffery Epstein die in jail under their care, but if a business owner says that they don’t want their company unionized, watch out! They’ll come for you in balls and chains and even some terrible words to destroy your public image in the press. Democrats love laws and they pass them any time they can so they can use the government to compel people to do things they don’t want to do through force and violence.

And just as Cortez was quick to remind Barstool Sports that they have an obligation by the Department of Labor to allow people to unionize, that is the real intent behind the assault weapons ban that is picking up steam in the Democratic controlled Congress. After two recent mass shootings, both conducted by radicals from their own party, Democrats are pushing for another assault weapons ban, and one that goes further than the ridiculous 1994 law that was created by the Clinton administration, between visits to Epstein’s Orgy Island where sex with underaged girls was always on the menu. There are currently 198 co-sponsors which is just 20 shy of the votes needed to push the bill through the lower chamber and into consideration. Given the nature of their gun grab Democrats have no interest in what actually caused the mass shootings, but only in what laws they can pass to further control all of our lives.

That brings up an interesting question, why do Democrats think they can ignore the laws that conservatives support, like marijuana illegalization, and illegal immigration, but that any of us would give a damn about their assault weapons bans and attempts to control unionization of businesses? If they are going to ignore laws to push a political position, which is what they have done and it led directly to the mass shooting in El Paso, Texas due to the push to shove immigrants into Texas from Mexico to turn it into a purple state of Democrat voters, then why would anybody think that we would change our behavior over gun control?

The thing about laws in general, especially in a society with too many laws that were hastily passed to gain political points rather than really solve problems in society is that it pushes activity underground, and that is exactly what will happen to guns if they are overly regulated. As it stands now if police want to know what kind of guns are in a household there is a data base with serial numbers that will tell them what to expect if they knock on a door to make an inquiry. I think that’s too much, but many lawmakers should consider themselves lucky to get that much. But the moment that congress starts making this and that illegal guns won’t stop existing; they will just move to an underground market that nobody in government will have any control over and things will be worse as far as gun control. The attempted ban of high capacity magazines and AR style platforms will only push them underground to a point that the police couldn’t even begin to get their arms around. And the foppish FBI can’t even stop mass shootings now, what are they going to do when all the gun related behavior goes underground? They’ll be even less effective than they are now.

For all the reasons that moonshine was pushed underground, people never stopped making it. These days you can walk down the street of Gatlinburg, Tennessee and buy all you want. The laws didn’t stop the behavior. Just as pot laws never stopped the behavior. And it is illegal to have sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, and Democrats have ignored those laws openly, and without consequence. So why would an assault weapons ban even be considered a viable option? Because Democrats want to send the clear message that they are in control and want to regulate your life in every way they can, that’s what they are about and all they really desire. They don’t care if people do break the law so long as they can pick and choose their targets to regulate vigorously, such as Cortez did in pushing Barstool Sports into shame over their anti-union sentiment.

Ultimately this is why we have the Second Amendment, because the power of politicians does go to their heads and they will try to control our lives every chance they get. And in response to their desires for gun control we are in the maker era, where we can make our own guns in our garages with technology like the Ghost Gunner from Defense Distributed. I can make an AR-15 in my garage in an afternoon. I don’t need to go to the store to buy one. Just like I could make moonshine or some other substance that might be against the law. The law is just a piece of paper that politicians pick and choose which to enforce. They want more laws so they can pick and choose from more when they think its to their political benefit. Meanwhile, the rest of us are just trying to live life, and clearly Democrats don’t want that. They want to control the flow of that life and that is the real problem.

More laws, there will obviously be more people ignoring them. More laws will not make society safer, or march any of us toward prosperity. It will only create an environment where Democrats can shoot fish in a barrel any time they want to push and pull control for some social cause that enhances their power, like relying on the Department of Labor to enforce laws against Barstool Sports just for desiring to maintain control of their business. To the socialist advocate, they are on a war path to take over industry for the “people” which in essence means the worker not invested in risks and rewards that built the business to begin with. By taking over companies the Democrats spread their philosophy of socialism to every sector of an economy and that is why they like rules, because it gives them that assault without bloodshed in the streets. But history says otherwise, and since they ignored our laws, we might as well get used to ignoring theirs’.

 

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Why I Support the Ghost Guns of Defense Distributed: The law of the Bill of Rights is being “law-abiding”

I probably am one of the most law-abiding citizens that anybody will ever meet, except for of course speed limits. I hate speed limits and drive over them all the time because they are just too damn slow. But I love our society and want to see people enjoying it based on the constitution that formed our republic. I certainly don’t support chaos and anarchy or more laws just so a political class can stay in power. I treat people fair, until they do me wrong, and generally want what’s best for even my enemies. With all that said I am a big supporter of all the amendments of the Constitution, especially the first ten. The original Constitution I wasn’t all that crazy about as it was way too Federalist for me. As there are worse figures in history other than Alexander Hamilton, for which I was born and raised in the city named after him, I felt that his influence on George Washington and our Constitution as a whole was way too “big government.” I’m much more Jeffersonian, or even the kind of thinking that Ben Franklin was, and I have a distrust understood by history of people who have too much power and use the legislature to ruin the lives of mankind. So, in that regard I take the 2nd and 1st Amendments very seriously and for me there is no gray area that needs to be interpreted in the Supreme Court.

As much of a Trump supporter as I have been, I do not support at all his turn toward red flag laws, as well as many prominent GOP governors into enacting them to pacify the radical political left. I see the NRA as my gun lobby because they represent me and those like me who see the 2nd Amendment as a necessary protection from the kind of corruption that often occurs when people legislatively stand over other people. And making it easier for that kind of power to reside over individuals is simply not in the cards, so no matter what gun controls are passed, my position is that they are not valid and should be discarded as useless, the way many liberals behaved about marijuana laws and other intoxicants. The behavior may be illegal, but the law turns a blind eye toward the behavior. Prostitution is also illegal, yet you can see prostitutes walking the streets openly just a few streets from the White House. So more gun laws are not something that gun owners like me are going to wake up and say, “oh, alright. Here are my guns.” No, any new laws will be opposed and ignored and will only serve to give politicians a platform to run for office on.

It is for all those reasons and more actually, that I support Defense Distributed’s work as an online open-source hardware organization that develops digital schematics for building “ghost guns.” Ghost guns are firearms that are manufactured at your home by either small CNC milling machines where you can upload the cut files off the internet and make your own guns out of blocks of aluminum, or other metals. There have even been strides in building guns off 3D printers that have hardly enough metal in them to set off a metal detector. The argument against ghost guns is that terrorists could use them to get into airports and shopping centers and cause mass havoc. But the premise is already faulty by the time we get to that statement because first you must assume that the government is competent enough to protect us, which of course they aren’t.

One of the first excuses that the prison that allowed Jeffery Epstein to disappear, either by death, or some other means from high security as soon as names were being named in that case of sex trafficking that looks to implicate so many powerful people, was that the guards were overworked. Unlike years gone by, labor unions control most government jobs, including law enforcement and they take little responsibility for anything that their members do and over emphasize everything else so that taxpayers keep voting for tax increases to give them their bottomless pit of money expectations. There are no consequences for failure in government and law enforcement is attached to that low expectation. To get in trouble as a law enforcement officer, you must do something really stupid, and often many things to keep the union from explaining away the failures.

Stephen Paddock the Las Vegas shooter after years of investigations could not be found to have a motive in the killing of 58 people and causing 851 injuries as he shot his bump stock equipped guns into a crowd of concert goers just trying to live life. There are still reports that the attack involved more than Paddock, but after a lot of money spent on the investigation it was concluded that he shot himself in the end before police stormed his room to find him dead. Trump talked the NRA into taking a stand against bump stocks and everyone lived happily ever after, only nobody still understands why he did it and how he had the kind of money to gamble away $10,000 a day as a high roller in Vegas. Many say he was a professional bank robber. Officially he made his money as a real estate investor acquiring over $2 million in assets making the rest off gambling. But the guy went from a postal worker, to a high roller in a rather dramatic fashion so there is obviously much more to the story, for which we will never know.

And that is always the case with these killers, we are never given the real story. Most of the news we get are in the first 48 hours before the FBI puts down the clamps on information getting out to the media, as we are told to “trust them.” And with each tragedy we find there are more laws going on the books to make our lives even worse with compliance. When none of those solutions and answers are even relevant to the circumstances. The real solution is to put more guns in the hands of individuals motivated to solve the problem—people not hampered by labor union expectations and politics but people who could have stopped Paddock much faster, or any other mass murderer for that matter. And when we do catch some vile evil doer, like Epstein, that they aren’t removed before they reveal more of the dirt behind the scenes of what is really going on.

Knowing how dirty our political and legal system can be, we must guard against their tyranny with the rights we have, which is where I point to the Bill of Rights and say that I can agree with those and follow that law. Not the law of modern politicians who are up to no good and want to use new laws to hide their malice. But the rules of conduct that were intended to create a functioning republic that stands for truth justice and the American way. And for that reason, I support ghost guns because the government, especially one that is involved in so much criminal conduct, does not have a right to take away our defenses and rule over us. We may need those guns to enforce a change in government, so in that context, Trump is wrong to support more gun control. All the governors are wrong. Everyone is wrong, because as much as they want you to trust them, the evidence says that we can’t. And we won’t.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

An Update on Cody Wilson: The heart of the Second Amendment and the forces against it

An update to the Cody Wilson story which was another piece of news from last Friday, the same day that court documents released the contents of high profile participants in that sex operation. While Epstein apparently committed suicide to avoid embarrassing testimony for his sex trafficking activities that documents showed involved many high-profile Democrats, Cody Wilson’s one sexual exploit with an underage girl was supposed to be a moral slap in the face. In Wilson’s case his age range is more understandable than Epstein’s. Wilson riding high off his dominance in the media as the Ghost Gunner manufacturer and spokesman for Defense Distributed fell from grace by paying a girl he meet on SugarDaddyMeet.com $500 for sex. She turned out to be 16 and from there the wheels came off. It’s a clear case of entrapment, Wilson was being watched because authorities couldn’t shut him up on the Second Amendment arguments that he was making all over the world, so the oldest trick in the book brought him down and took him off the front page. Wilson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of injury to a child and will be required to register as a sex offender during a probation term of seven years, which of course he won’t be allowed to own any guns during that period of time. It’s a shame that he fell for it, but it is what it is. Mistakes in this game will cause you to lose the whole game. So just don’t make them.

The hypocrisy couldn’t have been clearer. If Cody Wilson was advocating for a progressive cause, he would probably have climbed higher in the food chain and been placed as a hero of charitable foundations such as the New York based social network of the Robin Hood Foundation. But Wilson was making points on the Second Amendment which made him an enemy of the progressive movement, so they had to find a way to get rid of him. Not the way that they got rid of Jeffrey Epstein, but in a much more embarrassing way, to let Wilson live with a nametag of shame hung around his neck, as a warning to those like him who might be thinking as he did—that gun rights are not given by the state. They are rights given by existence, the right to defend yourself from forces aggressive toward you.

Defense Distributed, the company that makes 3D printers so that guns can be manufactured at your home easily was started by Wilson and it exposes the critical element of gun ownership that is at the center of the entire debate. Gun laws, especially those proposed by politicians after every mass shooting assume that gun manufacturers will always be controlled by the ATF and background checks and other methods and standing between the manufacture and distribution of firearms will always be the case. But the opposite is true. More than ever, technology has allowed for private manufacture of everything, especially guns. I could make one in my garage today and probably shoot it this evening. Once you have the ability to makes something the ownership of it belongs to you, not some central government that is trying to stand between you and ownership through regulation.

Cody Wilson had hit a nerve that no authority figure wanted to admit, so they used his mistake with that girl to tear him down. The hypocritical truth is that most of his accusers would be doing the same thing if only they could. How many times have young women lied about their age to get sex with an older man, especially if they had celebrity and money to feed their desires? A lot. Cody Wilson, as smart as he is, didn’t have the experience to say no. I’m sure he would today but for a young person, sex is a very strong need and it is used every day to control men, especially controversial men that are on television all the time. But his mistake doesn’t take away the argument. The government doesn’t have the right to prevent any of us from manufacturing our own weapons. We don’t need the gun manufacturers to make guns, or even bullets. We have the technology and ability to make our own guns and our own ammunition right in our own garages and there is nothing any authority can do about it. Which is what Cody Wilson exposed with his work at Defense Distributed.

The company he founded is still in operation and is selling their mini milling machines which can cut out a gun for self-manufacture as much as you’d like, and it is a brilliant idea. The cost of these milling machines is extremely affordable. For $2000 you can get a Ghost Gunner 2 which works wonderfully, and you can build 80% of the lowers of an AR-15, and AR-308, and an M1911 with little to no experience in operating a CNC. It’s a push button solution to a complicated modern problem. Even if Democrats were able to pass all the gun control they could dream of which separated the buyer of guns from the manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, Ruger and many other great American gun companies, we could decentralize the entire gun industry and just build everything in our garages.

It’s the same argument really that is going on right now with medicine and energy. Government very much wants to control utilities and insurance, but the trend is to fix people without the infrastructure that we have built the insurance industry around. And every home could have their own power plant. There wouldn’t be a need for all the power lines and grids that we are all used to if only we would deregulate those industries. It is government regulation that is holding back technical innovation. Inevitably the system will fail and people will get that independence, because that is the social trend of our modern science. That trend has already emerged with the gun industry. Now that we have that technology no authority in the world is going to put it back in the box. They might propose laws that require serial numbers on firearms or in acquiring the metals to make them. They can try to restrict the manufacture of gunpowder and bullets, but honestly, once we have knowledge, we can independently manufacture whatever we want. Look at the case of moonshine and the drug industry in general. Laws have done nothing to stop those industries. And laws will do nothing for guns.

If I want a gun, its none of the government’s business because I may need that gun to regain control of an out of control government. Government cannot take away the right of people to manage their own government. Obviously, and that is quite clear in the Jeffery Epstein case which we are supposed to ignore, but everyone is supposed to be outraged by Cody Wilson, our government is already out of control and we don’t want real sex traffickers like Bill Richardson, or Prince Edward to decide whether or not we can have a gun to defend ourselves from the government they are running. No thank you. The threat that is very real is that no matter how much President Trump or my Ohio governor Mike DeWine may want to appease the political left with more gun laws, that we as consumers will be able to step around their authority and make our own weapons, and government won’t even know where or how many. At least not legally unless they are spying on everything we are doing, which is certainly the case for most of us. But they can’t act on that information without revealing to the world that they are doing it, which of course they don’t want to do.

The Cody Wilson case makes me angry not because of what he did, which he shouldn’t have. I’m sure in the future he will be much more cautious about his conduct with young women. Most of the time it never goes well, so just don’t do it. The bigger prize is the Second Amendment argument, the right to self defense and to manage our own government with force if our election system breaks down, which in 2016 it came very close to doing. We cannot let authority figures define what we will or won’t do. We give them the ability to make laws on our behalf, but if they abuse that power, we have to be able to take our government back by force. They don’t want us to have that right which is why they support gun control. They know they are in a quandary where they are much more guilty of sex crimes than Cody Wilson. They want to be able to point at him and say, there is a bad guy, we are the good guys, even as the young girls from Epstein’s sex island scream for justice. When the heat gets too hot on that case, like it was becoming, then they just remove him from the front pages. Death is the best way to take off the edge and everyone lives happily ever after. But for Wilson, who made a great and accurate argument for the Second Amendment, he is to be socially repressed with a sex offender stigma not for the protection of society, but for the protection of a ruling class that wants gun control so that they can hold power forever if possible, and longer than that if they can figure out a way.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.

Where in the World is Jeffrey Epstein: We will never know, or will we trust the answer

Nothing about the Jeffrey Epstein case surprises me, including the conspiracy theory that the whole suicide by hanging himself was a fake to get out of prison and to hide for the rest of his life on some island somewhere so that the state didn’t have a case against him to proceed forward. Epstein had a lot of money and that can buy justice. A lot of people would be willing to turn the other way for lifetime wealth that paid off their houses and let them live free of occupational burden. It was only Friday that court documents were unsealed proving what I’ve said about the guy was true, that unveiled high profile friends who were part of Epstein’s underaged sex ring, people like New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, investment banker Glenn Dubin, Britain’s Prince Andrew, Senator George Mitchell, MIT professor Marvin Minsky, and even Bill Clinton. There were a lot of heads to roll and one of the victims now all grown up, Virginia Gluffre was naming names and they all point to many of the leaders of the modern progressive political circles that extend well into our court system. Jeffrey Epstein was the key testimony that would bring a lot of people down so they had to get rid of him.

The body that the ME Office in downtown New York had could have been anybody. It would only require a few people at the jail to play along with a body switch and coroners are unlikely to do any DNA testing on such a presentation. Their only job would be to pronounce Jeffery Epstein dead. So such a body switch is probably more likely given the money involved and the conditions of the case than someone getting into the jail to kill Epstein. Whatever the case, it was just too costly to allow Epstein to provide any testimony on a reduced sentence that would embarrass most of the financial contributors of the Robin Hood Foundation and the social circles that have spawned off it.

I pointed out the Epstein case many years ago, decades, so my position has been consistent. I’m glad he has been taken off the streets even if he is dead, or just pushed into hiding for the rest of his life to avoid embarrassing testimony. So many people’s lives would be ruined, even if they deserve it. The conspiracy theories that have spawned off this case are natural. People don’t trust the authorities who are in charge. We don’t trust the government to give us a straight story, even when they try to. Who in their right mind is going to believe that a high profile billionaire who is in jail and has the dirt on so many people is just going to hang himself in solitary confinement when he had been on suicide watch, especially one day after damning court documents were produced, and that the security camera would “malfunction” leaving no evidence of what happened, and nobody was apparently looking? People aren’t stupid, but authorities think they are, which is why there is no trust. People smell a rat, and it isn’t in Baltimore.

We are essentially talking about the same people who were involved in getting the FBI to alter an election in favor of Hillary Clinton which had its roots deep into the Justice Department, even the Obama White House. People are still trying to get their minds around that story which is unraveling as we speak. The proof of their corruption is out, and we know the names. The trouble is the people who would normally prosecute such a case are the ones guilty so at this point, legal action has not occurred. Knowing all that, it wouldn’t be surprising to learn that Epstein was either killed or taken away never to be seen again to live on some island in the middle of nowhere. A better deal for him rather than spending the rest of his life in jail. He has the money to make that deal and once this case started getting traction in court that would embarrass so many liberal leaders, I’m sure they were looking to make a deal.

After all, if you are Epstein and have a major sex addiction that only underaged girls could satisfy at least 3 times a day, the best security to enjoying that activity is to get powerful people to indulge in the activity with you. Once there is shared guilt, there is security in it for someone like Epstein which is leverage. When you get as many powerful people involved as he did, that is guaranteed leverage for the rest of his life. Its less likely that he would trade that leverage away by killing himself with the cameras turned off. Its more likely that his friends would produce a body that looked like him, they’d switch it out, and they’d all win by taking away the testimony of the man himself. Epstein of course would never be able to participate in any kind of societal function again. He’d have to hide away forever on an island perhaps in the Caribbean, but that’s better than jail. The plan before a week or so ago was to beat the whole thing and get out of jail. When Virginia Giuffre and other young women from the Epstein sex island experience persisted, somehow the pressure had to be taken away, and that was the central figure in all the testimony, Epstein himself. He had the money and the leverage to make a deal that would alleviate a lot of embarrassment for New York’s liberal high society, leaving them all glad to be complicit.

The main question remains, who, and why. What we know is that the key to the Epstein case is now no longer available, no matter what conspiracy theory one might subscribe to. The central figure of all this evil has been removed. Yet we aren’t just talking about sexual perversion with these issues, and massive problems with sex trafficking where intense sexual appetites were being shared with social circles that are at the center of our entire society. Young girls from all over the world were being purchased from their families and brought into the sex ring not just for Epstein to enjoy, but many in the top tier of political power, so the story doesn’t die with Epstein. He was just the glue that held it all together. The desire to commit the evil is what is at the core of this whole story. If it wasn’t Epstein who did it, it would have been someone else.

The whole thing plays out badly, it makes rich people look bad, it makes politicians look bad, and it certainly is an embarrassment to our entire legal system. Where is the justice for these poor young girls who are now young women? Well, I think we can see clearly why Democrats and other progressives are always trying to participate in social engineering and telling us how moral they are by advocating for open borders, drug legalization, and high taxes to build a big bureaucratic state, it’s to run cover for their intense sexual appetite and excessive social perversions. And they never plan to get caught, and when they do, they always get away with it because they control the legal system. Their commitment to gay rights and women’s issues is only to serve as a mask for their sexual exploits that they hope to conceal behind their good tidings. And when there is a risk, they find a way to make a deal to keep the embarrassment off the front page of the newspapers. Don’t be surprised if 20 years from now as an 80 year old man, some fishing boat doesn’t run aground in the Caribbean and find Jeffery Epstein in a hammock sipping on a mixed drink, and enjoying life to the fullest far away from Manhattan society and the news culture of the United States. Nobody else in the world will care, and that is the best mask of all.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.