Americans Love Their Guns Far More Than They Love Their Government: The cost of a Beto O’Rourke gun buyback

I consider even the proposition insulting, but looking at it practically, the ridiculousness of the Beto O’Rourke gun buyback on just “assault weapons” would cost about $20 billion. The amount of money it would take coupled with the manpower of performing the task is by itself staggering. And assuming that most people would cooperate, because they always do, there is a percentage of those who wouldn’t who would make the endeavor impossible. For the greatest military in the world and with trillions of dollars spent, the culture change in Afghanistan and Iran have not changed much. The targets in those conflicts went into hiding and the military struggled to root them out. A gun buyback in the United States would be no easier. It would cause a major civil war and is as impractical as anything ever proposed by government because it attacks the central premise of our entire legal system. Guns are what make America great and there are many, such as myself, who would never support a government that confiscates guns to hold their power.

I am not a fan of the mantras “come and take it” and “over my cold dead hands” because it assumes that we are daring a powerful entity to attack, and assuming that they would win by sheer mass of effort. I never intend to die in such a conflict, or that I am not the superior force. There are over 300 million guns in America and the peer pressure right now is to force retailers like Walmart and Dicks Sporting Goods to pick the pro government confiscation side, and to tax ammunition and to shut down manufactures within America to cut off the supply. That is the Beto O’Rourke view of the world where centralized governments could even garner such power. And they might in the cities where Democrats have ruined the prospects for growth and good human conduct. But outside of the highway loops, and out into the farmland between cities, I know those people well, and let me just say something. No military on earth could take the guns away from those people. And a lot of people would die in the process.

Regarding the Beto O’Rourke t-shirt indicating that he plans to take away the property of the American public in the form of their AR-15s I had to respond by daring him or his campaign to wear that to a stop in Slade, Kentucky, and to see how that goes. Really it could be anywhere USA that is off the path a bit, but I know the area of Slade really well, and understand that even the old grandmothers there are very suspicious of even postal workers and census takers. Try driving into the neighborhoods of Slade with military vehicles and national guard troops with the intentions of confiscating their guns and a blood bath would be quick to follow. They would probably beat the shit out of pot-boy Beto just for wearing that shirt in their community. I think it would be very entertaining for Beto to stop by and see how things go with that shirt on at the local McDonald’s because it would be a good indicator for how it would go elsewhere in the country. It wouldn’t be good.

And that’s the real problem is that these politicians look at the world through their little bubbles of urban life, and they assume they have a bead on everyone, and they don’t. Like most Democrats they view the world in a compliant fashion without ever really considering what human beings really desire outside of their needs for safety. The typical Democrat is a helpless form of human being living as victims to the very nature of breath itself. So, they turn to government to tell them what to do and when to do it. Then politicians like Beto O’Rourke and media types from the big urban markets start believing that all people are that way, which is far from true. I would say it would be impossible to confiscate guns in America, or to instigate a buyback program that would only increase criminal conduct from thieves trying to make money from the government by stealing guns and selling them on the buyback. The effect would fail miserably.

The government foolishly assumes that we need Walmart and gun manufacturers to put a dent in those 300 million guns that we have and to stop the sale. However, as I’ve pointed out often, we can make our own guns and our own ammunition. We don’t need official manufacturers because the science has been invented. People in Slade, Kentucky and all over the eastern part of Ohio down into West Virginia just thinking of my region could set up shops in their garages that could make guns off mini milling machines and ammunition presses. In fact, they would enjoy it. The entire operation would simply move underground like it did in the days of prohibition which gave rise to Al Capone in Chicago where everyone knew he was selling booze, but the law lacked the ambition to enforce the law because they wanted the product. It would be much more severe with guns, the black market for guns and ammunition would be extensive and harder to control than moonshine. The government isn’t big enough and never would become that way to put a dent in the gun market if it were forced underground.

The only way that government can even begin to control guns is through a system kind of like what we have now where there is a little background check and the ATF has some visibility on who is buying and selling guns. Its such big business that is the only way the government can collect some of the tax money off the enterprise, and in reality, that’s the only control they are ever going to get. The government could never get big enough to make a compliant nation without major bloodshed and they could never enforce it. They can’t even control that effort in their big cities such as Chicago. They certainly couldn’t go door to door in Greenville, Ohio and take all the guns from the farmers there. My bet on any government agency that would even try such a thing is that they would just “disappear” without a trace in the middle of the night from wherever they were staying and nobody would ever see them again, or who took them. And even if they did make it to the doors of people who would never give up their guns, shootouts would ensue and things would really start to get out of hand.

The foolish nature of big government advocates like Beto O’Rourke is that they really don’t understand Americans or the love of guns. They simply don’t like those people and want to change America into something else so they have never really taken the time to understand what an American is. For the typical American it is different than any other place in the world and guns are more a philosophical element than a practical one. Most people never intend to shoot a person in their entire lives or want to be shot at. But having that gun in the house is a reminder to them that they are free and independent. The threat of taking that away from them would make a desperate and angry person, and that is what the government is not prepared to deal with. Beto O’Rourke thinks by poking the fence like he is that he can Trump his way into a Democrat nomination. But what they don’t understand, any of the Democrats, is that people love their guns much more than they do their government. And they won’t tolerate any form of confiscation. At all, and that’s more than tough talk. It’s a fundamental element to our country itself.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

The 25/25 Rule: Get better, don’t yield to weaknesses

A lot of the methods of business have been on my mind lately due to the work I’m putting into a new book I’m working on called the Gunfighter’s Guide to Business. In it there is a chapter on the International Journal of Production Research’s 25/25 rule and it is just another example of how the private sector is always trying to improve themselves so that they can make more money and stay relevant longer in a business environment. Yet government at any level never does and it shows in what their final products are. We joke about how inefficient government is, and people do desire jobs in the government sectors because performance standards are not part of the vocabulary, but it doesn’t take an accountant to realize that for every hour worked in a to heavy government environment that it is costing the taxpayer a tremendous amount of money because something like the 25/25 rule is not being utilized, and its very disingenuous to everyone forced to contribute to the madness through the tyranny of the IRS.

The 25/25 rule essentially states that you take the 25% of your business portfolio and not focus on it so that you can give attention to all your top customers. The effort was created to attempt to give more focus on organizational support for the best of your customers and requires a judgement call. The rule also assumes that there is always another 25% of your company portfolio that can be improved with cutting out non-value-added tasks. Can you imagine a school board meeting where such a conversation would take place? The teacher’s union which really runs all public schools would be up in arms and protesting in seconds, since the goal of any employee run management is to be as inefficient as possible so that the bar of expectations cannot be lowered, just ever inflated so that the “collective” is not pressured too much in any task. That is problem number one.

Yet even in relation to the private sector I think the 25/25 rule doesn’t go nearly far enough and is a very disrespectful way to treat customers if they don’t happen to be in that upper tier of a company’s portfolio. It’s not their fault that you as a business have focus problems and need to find ways to internally prioritize effort. While I do agree that there is always 25% of an organization that could almost always be eliminated in unnecessary process flow and streamlined operations, I also think that the task of every organization is that they need to get 25% better on their portfolios, not to ignore 25% of their current load so they can focus on their best and most important customers. A top-level organization is always doing that and getting better so that they can show off their capacity to handle pressure for future state growth opportunities.

What I find happening in organizations using the 25/25 rule is that its giving bad management another tier of excuses to use until they are forced to look in the mirror and admit what a bunch of losers they are. The intent of the 25% portfolio reduction is to manage overbooked businesses with a steadier workflow, with the notion that its better late than never getting it at all. To me this is reprehensible thinking and is the nature of that particular chapter in my book. The difference between the East and the West is that winning matters and some of the parameters of western thinking that determine victory is speed and accuracy—the drive thru window with everything in the bag that you ordered—the first time through. We want it fast and we want it accurate. This whole 25/25 rule had me thinking of the bullwhip competitions that I’ve been in over the years where you are supposed to be 7’ from the five targets in the Speed and Accuracy competitions. You are timed how quickly you can use a 6’ bullwhip to crack out the ten targets. For every miss, there is a 5 second penalty. Learning to do that competitive event is a good way to step beyond the 25/25 rule and instead to focus on improving yourself by 25% not passing along your inability to some down the line customer.

We see it all the time, we’re picking up some food at a drive thru, the restaurant is obviously understaffed for the level of business they have and lines are wrapped around the building with everyone waiting on their food. Additionally, the people who don’t want to wait in that long line go inside to order at the counter, hoping to step around the mess. But standard practice in every fast food restaurant is to use that 25/25 rule to deal with such carnage, and the first thing that goes is worrying about the dining room because it is the drive thru windows that have the timers on them and is how they are measured as a successful business. Such a place could be said to have a capacity problem and the managers will blame their high call-off rates and blame the weak condition of their employees as the reason for their victimized status.

I would argue that the capacity constraints are not in the machinery, since most fast food restaurants are built to do the business, its in the high turnover and generally unreliable nature of the employees they hire that causes all the problems. I find the fault in the managers who have such a bad staff that calls off too much, or the kind of people they hired to begin with, in not determining at the interview that their employees might turn in to unreliable employees, and that the management culture allowed the employees to call off often without consequences which is why restaurants sometimes are slammed and unprepared to deal with their customer bases. Hiring the right kind of people through the interview process then developing those people through proper management practices is the key to successful staffing which then solves the capacity challenges that are not related to the equipment itself.

The 25/25 rule tends to give bad management the excuse to hide behind this measurement system and give them a victimized status to explain away their failure. “My employees called off, so I couldn’t successfully handle the customer demands.” Yet it was the reason all their employees called off that the management system didn’t deal with, which is why there is a problem in the first place. The company should focus instead on having a 25% increase in hiring efficiency where their new employees have better attendance. Or the drive thru window workers get 25% faster than the less experienced newbs. Or that you can run the whole operation with 25% less people. Those should be the targets and people who do things like that bullwhip competition that I mentioned understand that process because it simply wouldn’t be permissible to complain that the competition was too hard and that they didn’t have the speed and accuracy to compete. That is the nature of my new book, is to change the thinking about these kinds of things from a victimized status to a proactive one. If you want to do something, don’t blame the conditions. Get better, and acquire the skills needed for success.

Of course, the obvious hatred for President Trump by protectors of the status quo, the government employees who have been sucking off the system hiding behind a lack of standards reviews, or the government labor unions who have their own rules, such as a 99/99 rule. Unions are only willing to give 1% toward performance review, or a process improvement. They aren’t willing to sign up for any performance expectations because they don’t want the bar set where their lazy employees have to live up to. While that makes for a nice job for them where they get paid whether or not they actually do anything, the benefit to the end use customer is us, in that they cost too much money. At least with President Trump a part of our government is starting to think more like the private sector, and that’s the way it should always have been.

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Failure is Never an Option: Trump is right, bad companies blame the tariffs, not themselves

I’m glad President Trump said it, its true, badly run companies are using the tariff war with China as an excuse for their poor performance. I agree with him. That is usually the case any time an organization is caught performing bad, they will use any excuse to hide their own behavior. In public school systems they always blame the unfunded mandates of the state, or the allocation of the state money, but what is usually the case, its their lazy union employees who are the cause of poor performance and the unwillingness of the school boards to fight them. In the private sector the same kind of blame game goes on, only in business there are constant exercises in management review that exploits the real problems. Not all companies, in fact most companies, are not well run so price increases due to the China trade war or long lead times from suppliers is an easy target for losers to blame for their own problems. So, it was good to see that we finally have a president who has run businesses, and understands how things really work, instead of some out of touch politician who believes everything advisors tell him.

Good management is to close gaps when it is obvious that they need to be closed, such as in the trade deficit with China. For all the bellyaching that is made about how bad the trade war is hurting farmers in America, Trump has moved $16 billion collected from the realignment of the new tariffs on Chinese goods and sent them straight to the farmers since they have been targeted by China. And as Trump pointed out, there are many more billions of dollars that we are collecting now that we weren’t before, so the farmer issue in losing to China isn’t even a consideration. And neither are the complaints where price increases are being blamed by the tariffs. As far as revenue collection, the United States is making money. As far as supply chain management, companies always knew the risks of doing business with a communist country, and they should have had contingency plans. That they didn’t says a lot about the kind of companies that they are, lazy and unprepared, so the tariffs are an easy target for the incompetent.

Almost before the trade war started between Trump and China I heard business insiders starting to blame the poor condition of their supply chains as an excuse to either push out lead times or jack up their prices. But if they were actually a well-run company, they would have already thought about those things, even a year out and they would not be affected by a trade war with China. Blaming the tariffs for anything is the first sign of people who don’t know better, and are bad managers of the elements of their life which interact with business. Before Trump came along nobody said such obvious things so we should all be grateful that Trump is willing to take on big communist currency manipulators like China but also the big companies in America who love to hide their out of control management on politics. Most of the time, the fault is theirs and theirs alone.

Every organization that runs a budget, whether it is the large government schools of nearly every community in North America or a large corporation like Apple, they are expected by reality to produce and to do so well. The challenges that come along whether its unfunded mandates or the supply of metals are tasks that all management is supposed to deal with. Nobody wants to hear excuses; they just want results and that is ultimately the value that companies bring to their markets. An excuse is not a value, it is simply a means to explain away failure. But from my perspective, and this has always been the case, failure is never an option.

I was very encouraged the other day; I was at a stop light and a large tractor trailer pulled up alongside me. On the trailer was a company motto stating, “failure is not an option.” I thought to myself, there is a great company. Any company or organization that puts that as part of their branding is at least trying to avoid the blame game of failure that is part of their business. Someone is always failing them, the question is, will they accept that failure or overcome the imposition? A company that does not accept failure but simply moves on from it is one that is trying to be successful. But a company that says, our business is hurt by the tariffs with China, or the interest rates that are at play, or we are having a hard time hiring people because everyone is on oxycontin these days, those are all loser statements. They may have roots in reality but accepting them for poor performance is detrimental to any organizational behavior.

A great football team doesn’t stop trying to win if their star player goes down, or if the referees call a bad game against them. Those things might actually cause a team to lose, but blaming those elements are loser statements. Accepting that failure is the first step in losing and any company that blames things for their poor performance is acting as a loser, and not taking the steps that success requires. To win at anything overcoming barriers to success are expected. If a company doesn’t have the talent to do so, or the will to do it, then failure may happen. To explain their inadequacy to their share holders and other carriers of the public trust, they might blame tariffs or supply problems. But in all honesty, it was their job all along to overcome whatever opposition to success that there was, and to win the game, whatever it may have been. When people say that “it’s not whether you win or lose, its how you play the game,” they are partially right. How you play the game is all important in whether or not you will experience success. But even in that popular statement are the seeds for failure planted. It implies that even if you lose, if you played a good game, then you are off the hook. Bad companies have become very good at looking like they are playing the game well with lots of nice charts and excuses, but ultimately it is how you play the game, and whether you win or not. Nobody likes second place. Everyone loves a winner. The goal is always to win and to overcome impediments.

Excuses are for those who are lazy or stupid, incompetent or up to no good. I often decry labor unions because they are often to blame for a company’s lack of management, or the organization as a whole of something like a public school where the inmates run the asylum. Management at these places often throw their hands up and say things like, we failed because none of the union workers wanted to work the weekend, or we had a strike and couldn’t bring in raw materials. But what they are really saying is that they have no control of their business and weren’t thinking far enough ahead to have contingency plans. Such companies are blaming the tariffs for their poor performance and they make Trump a target for their failure, but in all reality, they own that failure. And nobody else.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

I Love Being Right: James Comey should go to jail

Not to brag or anything, some people are good at certain things. Some people can throw a football downfield accurately and under pressure, some people can dance on their toes and appear light as a feather, and some people are great at math. We all have our things that we are good at, and some of us work hard throughout our lives to become better at more things. For me, my thing has always been the ability to break down people upon meeting them for a short time, and to structure conditions based on that relationship. I can tell most of what I need to know about people within a few minutes of talking to them, and it is with a great amount of pride that I figured out James Comey very fast. Due to the nature of this recent Inspector General report from the Department of Justice I am enjoying more of the “I told you so’s” because it implicates James Comey, the former director of the FBI as a liar and cheat who was an activist against an incoming president of the United States and grossly abused his power to instigate the overthrow of an election. Then tried to blame it on the Russians. Thinking back just three years ago I was particularly proud of myself for my comments on CNN during Anderson Cooper’s show when I stated on air that Comey had lied during his testimony and should go to jail.

Of course, for television I didn’t want to be that hard on him even though the host wanted me to say so much. At the time even considering such a thing was extremely scandalous and we had only had Donald Trump as president for a few months. We really hadn’t had a chance to see Trump operate under pressure and all we knew about Comey was that he was projected as an honorable man. But I watched his testimony with the CNN crew the entire time and my thoughts about the guy afterwards wasn’t that it implicated Trump, but that it did the entire FBI, and at that moment, nobody was ready to accept that thought.

CNN had brought a bunch of Trump supporters, me included, to Rick’s Tavern in Fairfield, Ohio to watch the entire event as it unfolded on live television then to get our reaction to see if our support would wane for Trump. It was quite shocking to the CNN crew afterwards that none of us had pulled our support for Trump and that some of us, like me, were convinced that Comey was guilty of some bad crimes. The behind the scenes talk that day made me feel a little bad about it because the thought at the time was that such a consideration was so outlandish that it was in the realm of tin foil hatted conspiracy theory. Yet I am pretty good at these things, so I said what I did on television anyway and it was painful at first, because a lot of people saw it. But I had to stand by what I thought, and as it turned out, I was more than correct.

And it goes to say that I was right about all the others too, that the Justice Department was covering for the Clinton family and their many crimes. That like the Epstein scandal the private server had a lot of embarrassing information on it which is why Hillary had it to begin with. The FBI certainly didn’t want all that information out. They did their part to create the illusion of a republic while all the while steering our government toward a Democrat run dictatorship that would eventually melt into the United Nations as a governing body. All that was in place and people like James Comey felt that helping those things along was part of his “higher calling.”

I hate to say it but once you’ve known them in some form or another you’ve known them all. I know the kind of parties that James Comey and his wife went to in the back yards of their expensive government paid for homes with friends and neighbors, all of whom were connoisseurs of wines and fashion, and who planned long couples vacations to Europe for shopping trips in Paris and Venice just for the hell of it. They could tell you the vintage of an exotic wine with their pinky held out, but couldn’t tell anybody much about the names of gunfighters popular during western expansion, because to them that part of American history was to be erased and reset to a new world order. Comey thought that attribute honorable, the destruction of America into a global order, so lying about it was not a problem. It was considered to him collateral damage. Of course, the White House ran by Obama knew about all this, they are the ones who provoked it. And the arrogance in getting caught you can see now that they are no different from typical unionized activist caught by their employers for doing something wrong. For Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok to think about suing the FBI for wrongful termination, and Comey for insisting that he is owed an apology is just another page out of the union playbook for disgruntled, and spoiled workers who have lost touch with reality. That playbook states that when guilty, attack to keep the investigation off the details, just as in football when the other team blitzes, you throw the ball down field because someone will be open. Only in this game we are finally on to it, and these guys are guilty of some very bad things, domestic terrorism at the very least.

I am used to playing poker with these thoughts of mine simply because the audience that hears them isn’t always ready for the truth. The truth is the truth, but there is power in controlling the way that people come to it which is far more powerful than any concealed carry permit. Knowing things about people and understanding how to use that power is very helpful as a skill, so I don’t always blurt out what I am up to. That would be stupid. But it is good to say something so controversial on television so far ahead of the truth and to rub people’s noses in it a bit. It’s very “satisfying.” Of course, there are many ways to speak the truth, you don’t always want to blurt out in raw form what you think. Sometimes you do, it depends on the circumstance. But on a big national issue where at the time nobody felt comfortable in agreeing with me, the report from the IG was very satisfying. Now I would encourage you dear reader to continue reading what I have said with this understanding and to prepare your life accordingly. Because a country where the President ran by Obama thought it could use the levers of power in the way it did to overthrow the Trump election is a country already too far gone to ignore. We can’t just trust elections anymore, we must consider everything is against us, and to be vigilant. It may take more than just electing Trump to set things right. And that is a hard truth we all must face.


Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.

Soylent Green is People: CEO, Patrick Byrne spills the goods

Rich Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: 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 $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: Use my name to get added benefits.

Republicans Should Stand By Candice Keller: Playing into Democrat strategies will just get more people killed

This is the problem with Republicans, they don’t stick together when there’s trouble, and they allow themselves to wear unearned guilt on things like these mass shootings that occurred this week. I certainly don’t think Candice Keller who represents the 53rd District in Ohio should step down for comments she made about the shooting on her Facebook account. We aren’t living in that world any more, if we ever were.

Comments made in the arena of free speech, the First Amendment should not be grounds for termination, which is precisely how liberals have wanted to set the stage, and any Republican who thinks they are doing good by calling for Candice to step down, are feeding a vast evil that is undoing all social order. It doesn’t matter how much you salute the flag or tout a record of public service, or how valiant you may think you are, if you are so quick to throw someone like Keller on the trash heap for saying her opinion of what the cause of the mass shootings are, then you are just as bad as the Democrats.

Keller is running for the senate in Ohio and given all the effort it takes to do such a thing, she should probably reconsider so that this whole thing doesn’t prolong deep into next year. There will be other elections, but she certainly shouldn’t give up her seat as a representative of the 53rd District. Who can argue that the cause of these increases in mass shootings are not caused by a breakdown in family structure, as Candice said, and that recreational marijuana and violent video games are not the cause? I think it is laughable that the video game industry is citing a 2018 study which says there is no connection between violence and video games. I play them, a lot—and I can call bullshit on that from personal experience. If we want to accurately discuss the cause of mass shootings, then we need to have an honest appraisal from everyone. Calling for more gun control doesn’t even begin to understand the cause it only deals with the effect of the matter, and that won’t get the job done. Many of the things that Candice said in her Facebook post were honest reflections that should be investigated as a cause of mass shootings.

As pointed out by Martha McCallum who did a piece on Fox News that showed most of the mass shooters from 1969 to the present were male and without fathers is a jarring statistic that should be at the lead of every story. Instead, we are supposed to live in a world of gender neutrality and avoid speaking of the matter which is likely the leading cause. Additionally, as I have pointed out frequently, marijuana use by itself isn’t a positive thing for our society, yet again, most of these mass shooters are users of the drug. Combine the elements of marijuana with depression medicine which is all too common these days in young people, and we have the potential for lots of disaster. Its one thing to be accepting of social experimentation such as with homosexual lifestyles and intoxication as if those were values worth defending, but when people start dying over the results of these social experiments, it’s a serious problem worth analyzing. Keller as a state representative certainly represents my point of view. It is pretty weak for other Republicans to turn on her the way they have out of fear of being critical of lifestyles that are at the center of the core issue of mass shootings.

Hillary Clinton threw her two cents on the heap as well showing exactly why she isn’t president. She pointed out on Twitter that other places in the world don’t have mass shootings like this and they have their own mentally ill people to deal with. We don’t of course know what causes people to become mentally ill in all cases, we just deal with the result that it exists. She said the difference is that we have guns in America which then let mentally ill people go on these mass shootings. Well, we are a free society where many of the places she is talking about in the world are not. Guns equal freedom and that danger is part of the cost of having that freedom. Having a good military and a police force doesn’t go far enough in protecting those freedoms. We may want to give ourselves that illusion, but in essence, it is the freedom of each and every one of us to own firearms and to use them to defend ourselves that keep freedom alive. And we use the First Amendment to debate so that we don’t have to use guns to defend our positions. Once people are fired for things they say, then we are playing into a vile strategy that Democrats have been trying to impose on us for many years. Voters will decide whether they want Candice Keller to continue to represent the 53rd District. She doesn’t need to step down out of some sacrifice to the liberal left.

Clearly the liberals of this country want to remove the Second Amendment and the First by instigating violence and public opinion that can allow them to acquire power without bloodshed. These attempts have been made all through history, often violently, and this latest period in our timeline is no different. Only liberals don’t want to take power by force, but rather by sentiment. If they can get Republicans to do their dirty work for them, they will. But what Candice did isn’t much different than the way Donald Trump became president. The Party may want to toe the line which liberals draw, but voters don’t. That’s why they elected him specifically. And that’s one of the reasons that voters voted for Candice Keller.

If we don’t deal with the real problem of mass shootings then they will continue, which I have been warning about for a long time. I would offer that the cost of all this social experimentation that has been instigated by the liberal side of the political spectrum hasn’t just been uncomfortable, its been very destructive to the developing minds of our youth. And now that those disturbed young people are all grown up, they are dangerous as free people. Guns are a part of a free culture because it gives people the right to defend themselves from others who might want to impose on them in some way, either politically, or socially. But with that comes a basic understanding of social value. If we don’t share those basic values, then we are going to have conflicts, which obviously we do. In a lot of ways, and this was certainly true of the kid who committed the mass killing in Dayton, liberals want to provoke this kind of violence because it gives them the changes they want. Secretly they want to see these deaths because it drives their agenda. 50 people died over the weekend in Chicago, but we don’t see those people plastered all over the newspapers. We only see that there were two mass shootings that combined killed 29 people. Yet every weekend in Chicago where guns are illegal, about that many people die, and nobody cares. They don’t care because it is the failure of liberalized culture that is the cause.

To continue to wear that mask, and to divert attention away from themselves, Democrats have been using the kindness of Republicans to share in the guilt of these tragedies. But conservatives had nothing to do with the violence. Even the El Paso murders were driven by left leaning ideology. President Trump has never said to kill immigrants. He has simply resisted the liberal strategy of overflowing our borders so fast that we can’t deal with the processing of them because Democrats need the votes to stay in power. Its as simple as that. Any neo-Nazi type of person that may be out there are just another version of a liberal. The media calls them the “alt-right” but that is far from accurate. No conservative believes in racism and one race rule, only Democrats. Democrats supported slavery; Republicans ended it. Hitler was a socialist, certainly not a conservative. And many of the vile things that are going on in our country now are not the fault of Republicans who stand for family values, good decent public conduct, and honor among friends and neighbors do not share the guilt on the mass shooting problem. Democrats do and I thought Candice Keller gave her thoughts on the matter accurately, which should be protected under the First Amendment. Not punished and thrown away just because Democrats want her to be. Until Republicans realize that is the game, we are all playing, they will continue to be victims, and mass shootings will continue without resolution.

Rich Hoffman

Sign up for Second Call Defense here: Use my name to get added benefits.