Stand Your Ground in Ohio: There is never a “duty to retreat,” the law is wrong

It tells you all you need to know about gun control, especially in states like Ohio where gun rights are very explicitly covered in its own Constitution, that all subsequent gun legislation has been designed to drive people toward more government central authority and not the individual rights guns protect. And that is certainly true of the liberal resistance, even by the current Republican governor of all forms of “stand your ground” laws that move through the legislature. There is another attempt at this now floating around Columbus, Ohio by lawmakers and the debate that it has spawned has been predictable. But for me, it is simply the legislature that is trying to catch up to the reality and intent of the original Constitution. This “duty to retreat” stuff is completely wrong. When assaulted with a threat, no human being has a duty to retreat, under any circumstance just to protect some hippie view of some collective existence being more important than individual ownership and the maintenance of private property.

Listening to the current crop of Democrats and open socialists running for president, all who support gun control and therefor the destruction of individual rights in favor of group affiliations, it makes me sick to think that we paid a lot of money for their educations only to have them grow up and become……that. Joe Biden isn’t going anywhere in the presidential election, but he’s been in the top job and knows better, yet when he talks about restricting gun magazines that can feed a gun in a firefight, he is way off his rocker. Citizens can’t have inferior weaponry to the state-controlled military. Who controls a potential out of control military if the wrong people are running things from the White House? People have to be able to stand up to corruption and abuse of power, and you can’t be shooting BB guns when they come knocking on your door to confiscate your property because they want it, or to throw you in jail because you are representing the wrong political party. (Roger Stone)

Our military and police are not a one stop shop of honor and protection. They must ultimately be managed by the people who pay them, and if the power goes to their heads and they are the ones with all the heavy weapons, silencers, and high capacity magazines, then they have leverage over the population and that is not their job. And when politicians fail us, such as they did during the Trump election, someone must have the power to keep them in check. No matter what anybody thinks of Donald Trump, his election revealed massive corruption at the top of the food chain, particularly among the Democrat Party and their scandals planted in Ukraine for their own enrichment. It goes far beyond Joe Biden. When the FBI is willing to edit FISA warrants and use the law for their own political desires, they will do anything else to harm private citizens and it is for that reason that any law in any state has a duty to retreat, to give the bad guys the advantage over the good, pure and simple. We know that we can’t trust government. We need government to manage affairs, but we know the power goes to their heads often, and we need to defend ourselves when it does.

In one of my published works, The Symposium of Justice the book starts out by the police letting a rapist out of jail to go after a young girl in the community. The police have a levy on the ballot for more money so they want to remind people how much the police are needed by letting a rapist out of jail and driving him by the home of a young teenage girl to “nudge” him into making her into a target that will ultimately panic the public into voting for more police funds. Just short of the attack a vigilant shows up and beats the rapist up to near death ruining the plans the police had and saving the girl from disgrace. A lot of people who have read my book think all that sounded like fiction and conspiracy theory dribble, but I can report that the entire first scene, including the vigilante action is nearly biographical and based on my own experience with the police department in Mason, Ohio while I was raising my family there and we became complicated with a marijuana distribution ring that the police were protecting, going all the way up to the mayor at the time. So don’t ever tell me I have some moral obligation to “retreat” when threatened. If you know how the game works you have a right and duty to justice to stand your ground, and nothing else. That is why my book was called The Symposium of Justice, because it was a look at what justice really is as opposed to what political tides want it to be.

American society and the culture of Ohio as a state shouldn’t not have anywhere in any of its laws a duty to retreat from a threat leaving action to the authorities. We shouldn’t give power to politically motivated prosecutors and loser lawyers to prosecute individuals who protect themselves and others with a gun, there are far more dangerous crimes out there to worry about. But to allow guns to be villains because they give power to individuals is the wrong sentiment and has no place written or implied in law. Rather, the key to a great society is when individuals can protect what they build and work for when danger comes to alter their momentum. For instance, if a businessman is taking his wife out for a nice dinner and they pull up somewhere for leisure and a robber is looking to enrich themselves at the expense of the couple, the businessman should be able to shoot the bandit dead on the spot without question, then continue their night of enjoyment unhindered. The businessman and his wife should not be subjected to embarrassment and plunder while the authorities waste countless amounts of tax dollars tracking down the villain, especially if it is found out that the businessman is a political contributor to a rival party and the bandit was sent to embarrass the businessman and force him down into a hole to hide in with disgrace from being robbed. This happens more than people are willing to admit. But regardless, its not the job of the robbed to retreat. That is just ridiculous.

There should never be in any legal writing any right to retreat, it goes against the very nature of a good society itself. Such a thing only helps the ill intent of villains, never the good people that are just trying to live their lives. The intent of such a law is to attempt to regulate good behavior to the words on a page and the promise of an oath to God, and these days, neither mean much to the villains of our society. But the barrel of a gun does, and it is that which truly keeps our world good and peaceful. Every person has a right to stand their ground, and nothing else, under no other pretense. Especially in Ohio!

Rich Hoffman

We Have Guns to Keep Politicians Honest: Another pot smoker, Karmala Harris and her gun buyback lust

When people talk about the success of the Australian gun buyback program it must be understood that they only have around 25 million people in their country. For comparison my home state of Ohio has roughly 12 million. And culturally, the histories of the two places aren’t similar, America was founded out of revolution and the Constitution created to uphold that law at gunpoint if necessary. If the police serving the state in the morning was your friend upholding the same Constitutional objectives but by the time of sun set were the enemy, it has been understood that the need for assault weapons could give people a chance to take back their government, whereas in other places around the world it has been assumed that the people would surrender themselves to the state under whatever conditions were presented. And it is under those understandings that the greatest economy in the world flourished, because investment was safe and opportunity boundless, which is good for business. Guns are at the center of American life and in that regard, buybacks of any guns is off the table.

So here we have another Democrat running for president, this time Senator Karmala Harris, another pot smoker, who is suggesting gun buybacks for assault weapons on the Tonight Show, even as we have learned to what extent the FBI and The New York Times conspired to resurrect a smear campaign against the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh over completely salacious stories going back to his Harvard days in an attempt to destroy him and the Trump nomination that put him in place. The obvious attempt by the government and the forces supporting that government, the liberal press, are obviously willing to do anything to destroy anybody who stands against them with a very thuggish manner and we’re supposed to view these events with candor and entertain the slightest notion that those same people want to buy back our weapons to usher in an age of peace? Give me a break.

I am passionate about this issue for the same reasons that I hate school levies for public schools, because the suggestions come from vile institutions representing failure and they hide behind children to sell their message. You can clearly see that on the Tonight Show townhall like event that had Karmala Harris talking about gun buybacks with students in the audience. You can always see that when labor unions want a raise, they put the kids out in front and their guilty parents to sell the levy at football games and the corner grocer. In the case of the school levy intent to tax private property in order to give kids a free, socialist education, or in the case of gun control, to provide safety. In both cases the plea is meant to rock our sense of security and for a price, we can win it back.

Most of the gun violence in America is committed in low income areas overly manipulated by failed Democrat policies and is generally gang related. Governments like gangs no matter where in the world they exist because they inspire in the public a need for more safety. Voters will vote for more police and more police levies if they think it will make them feel safe, so gangs of thugs and drug dealers are allowed to menace portions of society just enough to keep stories flowing on the front page of newspapers and the nightly news leads. People, especially peaceful people, will always vote for more politicians who promise to do something to solve the situation, which of course never happens. The gangs of our cities and of the world do their purpose, they drive normal people to clamor for safety and that often means more government.

But there is a reason there isn’t much crime outside of our cities where there are likely three to four guns per household and people don’t go around shooting each other. That is where America lives, and they understand that government often fails them. They are ready in case it comes knocking on their door, but they’d prefer to think about other things until that time comes. If and when it does, they have their guns in their gun cases and it reminds them of the laws we all agree to under the Constitution to have them. Once that security is taken away, well that’s another matter. America is not Australia, or New Zealand, or even Great Britain for that matter. Our nation was founded with the understanding that we have a government and we want that government to work. But we also understand that it fails often, government and without the threat of guns in every home, its really the only thing that keeps politicians honest.

We have seen from the same people who are suggesting gun confiscations and increased background checks a tendency to manipulate government for their own climbs to power. Hillary Clinton comes to mind and the FBI that was firmly in her camp to overthrow an American election in 2016 using the courts to do their bidding. When such a world is presented to us we have a choice, we can either take it as the rest of the world has decided, or we can take back our government by force. And that will require more than a BB gun. It will take those AR-15s and even more powerful weapons. I would argue that we should have our own military style weapons bigger than guns to defend our homes and neighborhoods from power hungry politicians who turn our police into weapons of war—friends today, enemies tomorrow. Assault weapons are not for hunting, they are for defense and maybe against property rights abuses from well prepared military figures who beat down our doors with full body armor and heavily plated vehicles. God forbid anything like that might happen, but personally, I’ve seen the roots of it many times and its very, very possible. The only way to keep a government honest is with the threat of gun ownership. The more, the better.

And that is what all the Democrats are afraid of. What they are selling to the public in their runs for office is more government, not less. So of course, if mistakes happen along the way, which they always do, they don’t want people shooting back. Democrats are more than happy to have collateral damage if it takes them to their version of the “greater good.” But we have seen what they are willing to do with 300 million guns in American households, imagine what they would do if that threat wasn’t there, and all we had to throw back at them was a strongly worded letter. Mankind has learned its lesson and America was the result. We’re not going back to European hierarchy. The Australians may have been tricked into it, as is New Zealand, but in the United States, its just not an option. It is well understood how to eliminate the next mass shootings. The FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, all those government agencies just need to do their jobs. And we need to get rid of gun free zones so that good guys can shoot and kill bad guys. It is that simple. But gun confiscation is when government goes too far, and answers will be required that nobody will like. And that is the way it is.

Rich Hoffman

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

Beto O’Rourke Says He Will Take Our Guns: Yeah, he’s smoking crack

I already know what its like to go to heaven, I was in heaven Thursday night while the Tampa Bay Buccaneers were playing the Carolina Panthers on one television and I was watching the loser Democrats on another TV. Then to fulfill my needs I was reading the latest Star Wars book, The Black Spire Outpost while I answered professional emails on two different computers. It doesn’t get any better than that. I was as happy as I ever get for about three hours until the Bucs finally won late in the early morning hours. However, something did get my dander up, it was the pot smoking skateboarder Beto O’Rourke who said during the Democrat debates that he was going to confiscate all AR-15s and I’ll have to say, it pissed me off considerably.

I’ve heard it before, that making declarations of violence against government officials who come to our homes to confiscate our guns is considered radical, and even criminal. Well, no its not. The law that I acknowledge is that we have a right to own guns not just for our own protection, but to maintain the stability of government. My position is that we can’t completely trust government, ever, certainly not with our lives. So when I hear a politician even assume that they will ever get that kind of power, to send police door to door to collect our firearms, it makes me just a little angry. And I don’t consider it controversial to say that I’m not going to comply. Any government that supports the legalization of drugs, and the confiscation of privately-owned guns is a government that needs to be overthrown and reorganized. And that’s all there is to it.

I want and expect a good and stable law enforcement to do the work of maintaining peace. But have no illusions, even under the best of circumstances, there are always dirty cops and corrupt government officials, we will never be able to trust some altruistic government to lead us into some utopian future. The way to have a good future is to keep government looking over their shoulders at their bosses, the people who elect them into power. If they abuse that power, we must have some kind of recourse to take that power away from them, such as the Second Amendment.

Another thing that wasn’t talked about much on such an active Thursday night with so many exciting things going on was that the Department of Justice had rejected the former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s appeal to avoid facing prosecution for his role in the Russian conspiracy against President Trump. We talk about the FBI being the top law enforcement agency in the world, and that may be true. But we also have seen that it can be very much a corrupt organization whether or not the problem was only at the top, or if it was the regular agents who work in our neighborhoods. Most of them are probably good people, but there will always be some bad cops out there and we never want to be defenseless when they go rogue.

I’ll go further than that, I have too many experiences with police who were very bad to ever trust them completely, even if the president I put in office with my vote is all about the thin blue line. I’m not anti-cop, but I tend to be weary of people who dedicate their lives to having authority over others and at best I think they need to fear the people behind the doors they might be tasked to break down. I’ve never been arrested, but I’ve been in a lot of trouble on many occasions and I’ve seen the way authority treats people when they think the story is one sided. For my roles, I’ve always been unquestionably the good guy so I’ve never had violence with police. But if they manhandled me the way I’ve seen them do people I’ve been near, I can’t say that things would go well for them. I don’t give anybody the authority to treat me roughly, or to force me into some mode of “submission.” If that ever were to happen, I would anticipate a major conflict, let’s just say that. I know more about how much corruption there is in our local police departments to understand mathematically that the situation only gets worse with more power as they get up to the federal level. And to that I would say we are all kidding ourselves if we don’t think there are major issues.

Yet having police is better than anarchy and radical chaos. I’d rather have a police force that has the good guys in it doing the hard work of maintaining that thin blue line. I would tell that stupid politician Beto O’Rourke that the only thing that keeps police in check from letting the power go to their heads is an armed public, that its critical to keeping the balance of power in check. For instance, my community doesn’t even have its own police force. The county sheriff handles everything, we don’t need that extra tax burden. But I also live in an affluent community where people generally don’t commit crimes against each other, and most homes have some form of gun. Nobody shoots each other. People wave to each other when they cut their grass. Life is good. Gun violence is indicative of personal values and behavior, and low-lifes who deal drugs and are too lazy to work tend to be the ones committing violence, and with them comes gun violence and police who like to use that chaos to overreact with antagonism of their own.

I don’t consider it radical to warn authorities that I’m not going to put up with politicians like Beto O’Rourke or the gun grabbing Democrats. They will never have a right to confiscate our guns. The guns are a right for a reason, because we know from history that we cannot trust authorities under any conditions. If left unchecked with power there will always be a certain percentage of law enforcement who will go bad and become part of the criminal element, like Andrew McCabe and James Comey. Comey was in charge of the entire FBI and we know now, that he was a very dangerous person drunk with power, so much so that he thought he was one of the good guys.

Guns are the best way to sort out justice from those who would be tempted to abuse power and those who might become victims of it. Nobody ever wants to shoot someone trying to break into their home, whether it be a criminal element or a law enforcement officer using their power for malicious reasons against the American property owner. Its not controversial to stick up for yourself or to maintain the means to keep power in check, when our election system fails, and bad people use that power to abuse us all for their own entertainment. Owning the guns and letting them know what will happen if they abuse their power is the nicest way to keep things from getting out of hand and is the key to social civility. However, if they cross over beyond that civility, we will unfortunately have to answer that challenge, and violence must be the consequence. I wouldn’t like it, but you must draw the line somewhere, and for me, grabbing guns by any government is simply too far.

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

The Latest Mass Shooter Seth Ator: Where liberalism has failed, they always call for gun control

It took nearly 24 hours after another gunman identified the 36 years old Texan Seth Ator as the Odessa mass shooter which led to many conspiracy theories right after the tragedy. What was different from this event was that the killer was pulled over by police and shot at as they approached his vehicle. It wasn’t necessarily a preplanned massacre as others have been, while using an AR platformed weapon to invoke mass destruction on innocent people. This time the guy was just doing his thing and when he was engaged by law enforcement that broke up whatever activity he was doing, it set him off into a volatile rage that turned deadly quick.

It was sad that immediately after there were already calls for gun control, and this time it was a bit different also. Anti-gun people revealed more what their intentions were, since it was obvious that Seth Ator had a bit of a criminal record. Just like with health care it was the Obama part of it that was sold with the intention of going to a public option and complete socialist takeover. Well, the red flag laws that have been proposed, as well as the background checks are just the beginning. Gun grabbers and solid political leftists want guns removed from society. They quickly were using this case as one where open carry wouldn’t have worked, and tried immediately to apply the shooters “white guy” status to support their attempts at gun control. Its all been part of their overall story, angry white guys are dangerous, racist and that they created America and all that needs to be erased from history. But to do that, of course they have to take away the guns because that’s what keeps such a rebellion from happening.

However, as I have said, and from what we know is directly applicable to this case, failed parental structures are what is causing these mass shootings, the values these kids are not getting in their families is far more destructive than any other element. Then as has been the case with every shooter lately, we are still learning about this one, but drugs both legal and illegal have played a part in altering the consciousness of the attackers. All those elements are foundations of liberal policy in the failed experiments of replacing the family with government and the results are exploding on our streets now that many of the basic foundations of proper behavior have been eroded away into this anarchy movement that we see everywhere these days.

There were early reports that this guy was on meth and was an Antifa member which I stated wouldn’t have surprised me at all. To be honest, at 36 he’s a little old for Antifa terrorism, but it would be closer to a reality than to say he was a good Christian kid from Odessa that just freaked out one day and killed a bunch of people at a traffic stop. Liberals want to remove guns from our society because they have made kids like this killer with their social policies and they are determined to use every tragedy that occurs to attack America’s gun culture, and they truly expect everyone to just take it, and go along with implied guilt for things they had nothing to do with. But the left did. As is typical of all these recent shooters, Ator came from a divorced home. While divorce has been around for a while, it only became common in our society over the last few decades. There was a stigma against it in the 70s and 80s. If a woman became pregnant prior to that period, you got married and you forced yourself to live happily ever after so that you could grow a family. And when you got older and couldn’t stand each other anymore, you still stayed married because it was the right thing to do for the kids. Because kids psychologically need parental structure, no matter how much they rebel. They need the structure of a father and a mother, and when that is replaced with something else, such as a government welfare check, a student loan program, or any form of handout that replaces a father as head of a family, we see trouble in the products of that family, the children.

Not that every young person who has a dad that lives across town and must watch their parents date other people and spend Thanksgivings with their new boyfriends and girlfriends, they don’t go out and shoot a bunch of people just for the hell of it. But it is a problem among a large portion of our population, just as heavy marijuana use is an indicator of psychotic behavior in a minority of their users. Not everyone who smokes pot becomes a killer just as not everyone growing up without a dad does, but it is certainly an indicator of future violent behavior.

I will be the first to say that the kind of world I want to live in, where we openly carry our guns, everywhere, that such a society would require the best of what our culture could produce. People in such a society would be well educated, would not abuse drugs and alcohol, and would come from solid families with loving backgrounds. The only reason we don’t have such a society is because left leaning activists want all the bad things, broken families, reckless—inconsequential sex, drug abuse, and an ignorant population. And to have those things, they don’t want guns so everyone can kill each other. They want the deviant behavior and they don’t want consequences. That is the real issue and no law proposed could fix that.

The anti-police stance of Antifa likely did have more to do with Seth Ator opening fire on the police as they approached his vehicle after a traffic stop. The solution for the political left is to take away all guns so that Seth Ator wouldn’t have had the opportunity to do such a thing. But of course the ignorance of that proposal is that it does nothing to correct the desire to shoot a cop in the first place. After the initial attack against the police, Ator drove around killing random people, but there clearly wasn’t a plan. It was behavior driven and the elements that created that behavior that was the real cause. If it wasn’t guns, it would have been something else. Killers and lunatics will use anything to invoke a menace on a population if they are unhappy, which is why guns are needed to keep such things from getting out of control. In an open carry environment, he would have been shot by a good guy with a gun sooner, but this was different because he was in a car driving around before people could really get a sense of what was going on.

Without question these shootings are more political than demanding a legal mandate because no law proposed, background checks, red flag laws, or even illegal drug enforcement will change these occurrences. They are the results of liberalism injected into an otherwise conservative society and the conflict that is the natural biproduct. At the very least in this case was the lack of a biological family that was stable and secure. Mom and dad were divorced, and some people just can’t handle that. Their anger may project outward to innocent members of society, but the root cause is the broken family and the disappointments of a child that was robbed of that basic security. We would do better to make divorce illegal than guns. But to admit such a thing, liberals would have to admit that their social experiment of removing dads from homes and attacking the core values of American life has been a failure. And they certainly won’t do that. They’d rather blame guns.

Rich Hoffman

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

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.