Of Course People Took Guns to the Capital: We’re not playing patty cake with the Constitution

This has been a stunning week, the notion that liberals have which assumes that people with guns should not storm their capitals and demand justice as they did recently in Michigan protesting the governor there, and in Ohio in front of Amy Acton’s house, who has been the health director of Mike DeWine, the out of control governor who really started the lockdown movement in the United States, is completely wrong. When the laws of a republic do not work, then what did anybody think the recourse would be? Compliance? Give me a break, surely people weren’t that stupid. It is an obligation of all Americans to defend the Constitution of the United States and if forces, such as progressives, try to change the law through executive orders, emergency powers, or other back door antics of imperilment, then it is a mandate for people to defend themselves with that last line of defense referred to as the 2nd Amendment. If the 1st Amendment fails, the 2nd is there to protect the rest. Because if the 2nd goes, so does the rest of the Constitution. I was most stunned that Sean Hannity came out against the protestors with guns at the Michigan capital. He obviously is missing a few parts of the story as he has been lock step with President Trump in getting suckered into the whole Covid-19 thing. I can’t blame someone for not knowing something if they don’t have the intellectual means of obtaining the information. But he should understand that Covid-19 was never about a virus, it was a progressive attack against our Constitution and that imposition is a mandate for us to defend it against that attack. And that’s what people bringing guns to the protests were doing, and thankfully they didn’t have to use them.

Like most of what comes out of the progressive movement, they didn’t think everything through. While its true, most Americans were quick to follow orders and listen to the authorities and hide in their homes to avoid spreading a virus, or to wear masks for the benefit of others, there were enough Americans who could see what was happening to provide a proper resistance, and that aggression is far from over. We gave it a few weeks, like any good society should, but once it was realized that the whole Covid-19 outbreak was a political stunt launched from China and the World Health Organization’s most activist members, many Americans were ready to fight, and that is the reason we have guns in this country. Lots of them. And we will continue to have them or there will be a real fight, a bloody one, because that is the reason there is a 2nd Amendment in the first place, for just these kinds of attacks.

Yes, Covid-19 was an attack on the American way of life. Taking guns to a protest was not a political stunt, it was a warning, that violence could come next and that we are ready to take the fight to the enemy—domestic enemies. If there was anything good that came out of the coronavirus pandemic it was that the enemies of the American Constitution came out in the open thinking they had won the day, and that there would be a “new normal” where the American Constitution would be surpassed by some new guidelines written by the United Nations and flowing down through the World Health Organization and into the global society as a whole. At that point Americans would be considered just another member of the global citizen network. There are many progressives who already call themselves that, and they were betting that this coronavirus would be the straw that broke the camel’s back. Until protestors showed up with their guns.

Believe me, that’s the last thing I want to see happen, where we have to pull the trigger on others to defend our Constitution. But, if the American Constitution is no longer the law, then I’ll have to. And I will lead others to the cause, and the other side will not win. I’d rather do thousands of other things, like ride roller coasters at Kings Island, have breakfast at Cracker Barrel, and enjoy a shopping experience at Dillard’s with my wife buying new $200 ties. That’s the American life I signed up for and I agree to live by the rules of the Constitution in peace so long as everyone else does too. But when you see judges like the one in Dallas, Texas who sent a salon owner to jail for opening her business against his orders, then a fight is on the horizon if those progressive forces do not come back into the fold of law that the Constitution affords them. Without that piece of paper written that founded America, there is no reason otherwise to have a peaceful exchange with them as they incur themselves upon our rights, even during some emergency consideration. Progressives do not have a right to tell me what to do any day of the week and if they throw themselves in front of my path, they will be run over. Not my fault, I’m living by the Constitution. If they step away from it, that’s their problem.

And I was glad to see I wasn’t alone. It was good to see that there were enough Americans out there that were not suckers that maybe bloodshed could be avoided. God bless that Texas salon owner Shelley Luther who defied an unjust mandate by a corrupt legal system. Someone from our ranks had to do it and suffer the consequences. What she did took guts, and to be honest, it probably saved lives. GOD BLESS HER! In my own thinking, I’ve been waiting for Trump to catch on and fix this mess. I understand how he got roped into it, but without a president who might turn it around, I have been thinking what strategies needed to happen next and how to implement them. But yielding to progressives in obedience was never in the cards, and it never will be for me. I hope the day never comes, but there were 7 or 8 times over the last couple of months where it came damn close. Luckily, I live in an area with a good sheriff, a strong conservative political party, and a lot of people who think the way I do when pressed.

So it was never a surprise to me that people showed up with guns to draw that line in the sand. The Constitution requires them to defend it that way. What was a surprise was that progressives were so baffled by it. It was as if such a thing was not in their thoughts when they planned this whole damn thing. I think its safe to say that it should be obvious to everyone why they want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. But its obvious they didn’t understand how deeply connected people relate the 2nd Amendment to their Constitutional rights, which all progressives want to “progress” beyond. It appears they underestimated the resolve of Americans. Not everyone is so educated and resolute, most just want to live their lives as I described. But when you take that life away from them, they will grab their guns and force change on the stupid politicians who caused the mess and disrupted their happiness. And they should. That is part of the wonder of being free. Now that some portion of humankind has experienced that freedom, its not going back into the long history of misery that came out of that bottle which progressivism wants us all to drink from. Gunfire will happen before progressivism takes over America—it has to.

Rich Hoffman

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

Don’t Shop At Walmart: Anyone against guns is against the idea of America and is an advocate of domestic terrorism

Do you know what the difference is between “us” and “them” the political right and the political left, both of which cannot have a stake in the future of America because the philosophies of living are just too dramatically far apart? “We” talk about doing things and “they” do them. Such is the case with “us” talking about making Antifa a terrorist organization, which it clearly is, then the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passing a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a “domestic terrorist organization.” While the resolution is purely a political stunt, what is at stake is the branding of guns in general and any group or individuals who defend the right to have them—as terrorists. This as Antifa members beat people senseless, harass elderly flag waving veterans, and espouse brown shirt socialism from their corner Starbucks with outward threats of violence and mayhem. Even the now wimpy Walmart is in on the game of banning ammunition and pistols from their inventory refusing to sell them to their customers under pressure from these same forces.

The same mode of attack is at play as Andrew McCabe and Peter Strzok suing the FBI for wrongful termination even though they are the ones who committed the crimes, or the school levy supporter who advocates to boycott any business that does not support their mandatory tax increases, or the drug advocate who wants to ignore that all these mass shooters were depressed fatherless young people who by their indicated states had altered their mental acuity into dangerous assassins. The political left doesn’t care if 5 people are killed in a mass shooting or 50. Much higher numbers are shot and killed every weekend in Chicago. The goal for the left isn’t to eliminate shootings and mass killing. If they were for life, they wouldn’t be supporters of abortion which kills many more people every year. So do car accidents, and stabbings. For them mass killings, which they have their hand in the philosophies that cause them completely, are opportunities to exploit their real aim, the abandonment of the Constitution the re-invention of America, and the acquiring of power for a large central government over an independent republic.

My advice to you dear reader is not to shop at Walmart due to their activism against guns, which is the backbone of American life in so many ways. I am writing a book on that subject as a matter of fact and I could easily fill it with content as large as War and Peace. Of course, that would be too long, so editorial considerations must be made in the process, and I’m certainly not going to try to define it here, in these little 1200-word articles. Its beyond the scope of this subject. However, Walmart has built an empire off the American lifestyle and once they turn against guns and their users, they are headed in the wrong direction and are victims of the radicals rather than helpers of a better world.

My wife has to drag me to a Walmart every time we go. She likes it, has a loyalty to them for offering goods at the lowest price possible. But what I see is an ocean of mediocrity and I like to avoid the place and the smell. My thoughts on the matter are that low prices tend to bring out low expectations in life, so in a lot of ways, Walmart has hurt people, not helped them. Lowering the bar for living a good life may not be the best thing. After all, what good is an expensive item gained cheaply if you cheat the real value. The only way to pull off that hat trick is to actually lower the value of the product itself which is the case with Walmart. The value of Walmart to a person like me is that I can buy guns and ammunition while my wife shops for groceries. If I can’t do that, then I have no value for Walmart.

And that’s the way it always is, it’s always conservatives who move toward a position that the left claims—its never the other way around and that is because conservatives are such nice people. They are just and they do have empathy while the left is like that spoiled teenager that can never be made happy. What we never talk about is why they are never happy. Its not because they don’t want to be happy, but because they use their unhappiness to change policy for themselves, so they can get one more hour on their curfew, or the keys to the family car for a night out on the town. The left throws fits of rage for the hell of it, so they can bring hell to the rest of us. They expect us to compromise while they do nothing to meet us halfway. So why in the world would we do it knowing that?

The reason is that conservatives are smarter than liberals and are naturally averse to conflict. They would rather use other aspects of their intellect to solve a problem than fight and that is what the left exploits, because like a spoiled teenager of loving parents, or guilty parents, they know they can get away with it. That is precisely how Antifa expects to inflict terrorism on us, and why the FBI drifted away from justice and became radicalized. They knew they could get away with the effort, so they went for the aggression, because nobody was standing in their way.

I am a proud member of the NRA. I just renewed my membership which I do every year at this time just so I can have the privilege of renewing it. I like knowing that I am a member, so the renewal is my way of keeping it fresh in my mind. And within that membership I see and hear from the true backbone of America, and I like those people. I take offense to it when they are called names and when my organization is attacked and called a terrorist organization. To whom? The actual domestic terrorists within our borders—the political left?

For me I do have other tools to fight with than violence and I spend most of my life using those tools. But unlike other conservatives I am not against meeting violence with violence. If that’s the only language that the left can speak, well I can assure them that I can shout louder than they can. I am not OK with Walmart turning anti-American, I am not OK with my group being called a terrorist organization. And I am not a supporter of Antifa terrorism, radical levy moms and their boycotts of businesses, teacher union losers striking for more money when kids need someone to watch them while their parents are working, and I’m not OK with an FBI that tampered with the last American election and expects to get away with it. Guns mean that my life will not be controlled by those kinds of people. Removing guns from society means those types of people will decide how I live and that isn’t acceptable. The debate isn’t one of gun control, its about what kind of America we want. Mass shootings are caused and exploited by left leaning political activists for their own brand of terrorism, and it is not the task of the political right to appease them unopposed. Since we can’t trust politicians, we have the NRA, which people like me make up. And when it is attacked, I consider it an attack on me. And that is not a good strategy on behalf of the real domestic terrorists, the political left.

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.

Hate Crime Legislation to Ban Guns: The Government attempting to disarm the Second Amendment to cover for their own crimes committed

One of the gun control measures that congress intends to pursue when everyone gets back in session and is being floated around more and more recently is to take guns away from people convicted for a hate crime. In fact, it was Columbia, South Carolina of all places who just enacted a first pass hate crime ordinance which is going in the same direction as what is being floated on the federal level, and it is just ridiculous. The trouble with the proposal is that it is purely reactive to the current circumstances of mass shootings, which I have said many times are the result of Democrat policies as an origin, and that it just opens the door for banning guns based on hate speech, which is entirely defined by whatever political party is in power at the time. Such a ban opens all kinds of doors toward future encouragement and abuse of the law no matter how good the intentions are of the people proposing these measures.

My brand of conservatism was common all through the twentieth century. It was the world that changed, not me, and that hard turn to the left that started really in the mid-1950s and culminated into the 60s was a bad decision based on the current condition of the world. I often say to people that I was born in 1968 as a solution to that left turn. I grew up knowing both of my farmer grandparents. Both of my parents stayed married and didn’t embark on that social experiment of divorces that was becoming so popular in the late 70s and 80s. And even more unusual, my mom was a stay at home mom, and she took all kinds of hell for doing it. She was a volunteer at my school to help the teachers with all the kid’s social events and all the other moms simply hated her, because she could be home with her children and had time during the day to do mom stuff. As a result, my view of America and Republican politics in general was not at all different from John Wayne’s America, or any of the typical westerns that were popular on television and at the movies during that period. So nothing I say is all that outlandish, only if it is compared to the screw ball politics of our current time, just as a disclosure for reference.

Hate crimes are a modern invention by Democrats to seek minority votes and to capitalize off tensions that always arise when cultures of different values are mixed together. Most of the time those tensions can be worked out with a little understanding but occasionally things get out of hand and bad things happen. Democrats especially are guilty of stoking those fires of discontent until someone snaps and thus, you have a hate crime. If everyone would just leave everyone else alone, there would be a lot less hate crime in the world. But activist politics pushes the issue and before you know it some panicked teenager raised in a house full of illiteracy is running their car through a crowd of progressive protestors committing a hate crime.

The trouble with hate crime is that it is entirely politically motivated, so that if an enemy political party wants to push your buttons as a target and you respond, you could be said to have committed a hate crime. And under these new hate crime proposals, the authorities have a right to then come and confiscate your guns. If that’s not bad enough, the natural next step is to extend that effort to hate speech, which essentially could be just about anything that President Trump says on a daily basis, because he is from the winning political party and the losers are hen pecking at him because they know of no other way to win an election. Because of that we are seeing massive amounts of banning going on social media platforms, such as Alex Jones has experienced along with many, many others. I understand shadow banning, that is certainly the case with me on Twitter and YouTube. I don’t worry about it too much, but I can see that it’s happening for sure. These are already dangerous elements in any society so we can clearly see that all this hate crime legislation opens the door for gun confiscation by whatever political party is in power, and it just can’t be allowed.

It is not radical to say that the reason we have guns, guns of all sizes and power is so that we can manage our own government. There may come a time, and it is obvious today, that we may have to take back control of our government through the use of guns. Government cannot be trusted without a check on their power, ultimately by the people of an electorate and the electoral system. Even with guns we have come perilously close to complete tyranny as the evidence of the last presidential election is testimony in itself. The FBI sought to help the Democrat party elect their presidential candidate and keep Donald Trump out of the White House, which didn’t work. But when he did, they actively played a part in subverting that election, the evidence is everywhere as revealed most explosively with the Bruce Ohr situation at the Department of Justice. That case is still unraveling, but it is very embarrassing to our government. Going back a few years we saw a similar situation involving the IRS where they targeted Tea Party groups as a way to punish them for existing, using tax laws to encumber the leadership. It was a gross abuse of power and nobody was ultimately held accountable. I was wrapped up in the middle of all that, so I saw it firsthand. It was abuse by our government, pure and simple and honestly, if I was not a gun owner, they probably would have come after me even harder. By my experience, I would say that my ownership of guns has preserved more liberty and saved more lives than if I had not had them. Let’s just say that.

As to the other proposals such as red flag laws, well the tools have always been there. Since the most recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio police and the FBI are finally doing their jobs and picking people up for the messages they put online about announcing their mass shooting intentions. The red flags have always been there, but police and the FBI were just too lazy to act on them. There wasn’t a political will to enforce the laws that were on the books, otherwise the El Paso shooting and the one in Dayton would not have happened. The red flags were there, but the cops were out eating donuts and thinking about something else. That is another reason we can’t trust our government; they are not consistent and driven by performance. They are mostly inspired by politics and when something is hot, they act. When things cool off, they sleep, sit in their cars looking up pornography on their computers, and they have massive affairs with each other. (I know a lot of cops or have over the years. I know what I’m talking about.) They do a good job when pressed and people are looking. But left to their own devices, they aren’t the most motivated bunch.

We can’t trust government to define hate crimes or even hate speech and we certainly can’t surrender our guns to them. The guns are there to ultimately protect us not from thieves and despots, but from the tendencies of government itself, to cover their crimes when they commit them from the burdens of history. And if someone like you or I are witnesses to that burden, we will then become the targets, which is what all this hate crime legislation is opening up as a possibility, for which we all must say no. For myself, I live by the Cowboy Way, I treat everyone no matter what their sex, color or country of origin the same and with great respect. I don’t need a government that is always trending toward criminal behavior to define for me, “fairness.” I’ll keep my guns, and if someone wants to come and take them, then that will leave no other choice but to call for a change in the government itself and return to a time when John Wayne made a lot more sense instead of the race baiters and hustlers of our current times who seek to hide their own illegal activity behind more laws and regulation.

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.

The Politics of Gun Control: Why Republicans shouldn’t give an inch to Democrats

It’s time that we talk about political strategy for a bit and where we go from hear on gun control issues regarding the Republican Party. It is obvious that the expectation from everyone after the mass shootings in Ohio and Texas recently that it is Republicans who have to come to the center and to move in a gun control direction. And I certainly understand the temptation to act on that pressure which is obvious on President Trump and the Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. In DeWine’s case, I like the guy, but he is not what I’d call a solid conservative. He’s wavered on lots of things over the years including the recent gas tax that he put forth to pay for our roads in Ohio. He’s a generally good person who wants to do something just like everyone else when a mass shooting occurs. For most people a law seems like a good idea even if it would be just a token measure. And for east coast liberals who have learned to be conservatives over the years, like President Trump and his sons, they are thinking like negotiators, where our side gives a little, then their side will give a bit too. But that’s not how this game works and we all know it, especially in the middle part of the country where I live. Rush Limbaugh gets it and he talked about it during his first hour on the show he did on August 9th, and I agree with him emphatically. President Trump and Governor DeWine should not work with liberals to pass even more background checks and to start down the path of “red flag” laws. Authorities should have been doing their jobs in the first place. More laws won’t do anything to save anybody in the future. But it will strengthen the anti-gun liberals who will control the message and for that, it will be a very negative thing for Republicans.

Remember several years ago, I’m pretty sure it was 2016 if you want to look it up in these archives that I predicted on WAAM radio the end of the Democrat Party by 2021. Well, we are right on path. I also said then that the country would split into two more political parties that would come out of the Republican side. You can see now how that party would evolve, with politicians like Mike DeWine becoming the new liberal side of the party where someone like me would be on the conservative side traditionally recognized. As Democrats move further to the left ideologically most people won’t want to go with them leaving the anarchy wing of the party to flounder with little support and an eventual collapse. Joe Biden doesn’t have a chance in spite of what polling is saying. He will struggle through the primaries and if he meets Trump head to head, he’ll implode due to his tired old nature. And he’s the best that Democrats have. When they don’t win back the presidency or the House Democrats will implode as hopeless fanatics.

Not to mention what is coming out of the Bruce Ohr 3025 release. It is going to take most people a while to digest what the FBI did against an American election that saw Trump win in 2016 in spite of their efforts. The bodies are really going to fall in liberal circles on that one because it was the FBI that had become politically active in helping elect them at the cost to Republicans. Democrats are going to have big problems as a party coming out of this next election and the legal reality of the FBI fall out. The Democrats are blowing apart so the history of any bipartisan support will fall on deaf ears. There is no reason to do it. There is nothing politically to gain by working with Democrats this year or next year. The photo opportunities will be a liability not a help and even though it makes sense to Trump and others to give a little on gun control since more than 60% of voters support some measure of it, the battlefield of politics is changing dramatically and it is quite clear that in the aftermath that 60% number won’t mean the same thing. It is far better for Republicans to push for the causes of social failure for which Democrats have played such a large part than to feed them with bipartisan debate to make them feel like they are at a table that they lost long ago.

The problem with gun control is that it is not the right of government to give or take it away. Reading recently the Ohio Constitution again, which I posted one of my favorite sections on Instagram, the right to own guns and to use them not just within my state, but the 2nd Amendment in general is to retake control of our government if it should go asunder. And when the FBI gets caught doing what it did to President Trump the evidence is obvious that we are already there. If our election system doesn’t work and the government employees for whatever reason feel that they have a right to manipulate that election and pick winners and losers abusing the vast power that we have given them, then they aren’t going to give that power back when they get caught. They are going to abuse that power to continue to use it and if they have to kick down the doors of their political enemies to do that while calling CNN so they can record the embarrassing details, as they did with the aide to the President, Roger Stone, that practice will continue and even get worse. Guns aren’t there as a right given by government. They are there to keep an honest government with the threat of taking that power away if they become corrupt. Nobody is going to leave a public office at the end of a barrel of a BB gun. No, we need the kind of guns if not more so that the military uses, because the military operates on behalf of our government that is supposed to be working for us. But if that changes, there is no other recourse but removal from office at gun point, because laws at that point fail to inspire good conduct.

Working with Democrats on gun control only feeds them political power which Republicans have no reason to surrender. I personally blame Democrats for all this violence, entirely. They are always talking about dog whistles that Trump is flashing to his base in speeches, which I understand the psychology behind it. But its not him that’s doing it. Trump reflects his base. Democrats use dog whistles all the time and usually it’s the Hollywood actor community that dispatches it into popular culture through entertainment channels, such as this whole issue on plastic straws and environmentalism in general, or the toxicity of masculinity in the culture of the sexes. It was dog whistles controlled by Democrats that set off those shooters and they know it. The chances of all three of these recent mass shootings occurring as close together as they were in time, and by the age ranges and personality types of the shooters themselves, they are creations of the political left and they heard the whistle. Not to get conspiratorial about CIA mind control devices or anything. But the kind of hateful rhetoric that came from the mouth of Democrats with no answer to Trump’s many victories is enough to push young shooters like those kids over the edge and into a mass killer category. There were plenty of red flags, but when you have an organization like the FBI willing to help Democrats, how can you trust them to do their jobs correctly when we know better now. If we don’t want to look at the evolving case of Bruce Ohr, then lets look at the San Bernadine murderers where the FBI allowed the destruction of that crime scene by the media to cover up the obvious case of domestic terrorism so that the story wouldn’t explode with even more damning evidence that would have been embarrassing to the liberal ledger. Its not just a few people at the top as hard as it is to admit, but all through the organization.

The bottom line is that things are changing, dramatically in politics. We are looking at the end of a political party and DeWine and Trump would do well to let it die. Don’t give them a little false hope by working with them on bipartisan gun control that will be Republicans giving away value where Democrats have nothing to give, and never will. They will not help with the wall, or any infrastructure. They only want to say that they forced Republicans to move on gun control against the warnings of the NRA. That’s all they care about. So forget about them, destroy them in the upcoming election, then lets see how the country settles its new political landscape. The best gun control is to improve the social aspects of our people. Stick with that, we certainly don’t need more laws that nobody cares about or respects. Don’t empower Democrats by showing the world that they still have command of anything. Let them die the death they have made for themselves, then, and only then, can we have a real conversation.

Rich Hoffman

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

More Government Employees Failing where Guns are the Real Solution

Here’s what I get tired of hearing about when it comes to these mass shootings, they most of the time are caused by some institutional failure but are then opportunities for descriptions of heroics by that same institutional failure. All the while, the moment that a gun is involved in anything, before the facts were even published politicians like Bernie Sanders started talking about why we need even more institutional regulation to protect us from some unknown menace. This is of course regarding the latest shooting incident, this time at Virginia Beach by a long-time public utilities employee who had access to a building and opened fire on 12 innocent people and injured many others. Why he did what he did likely has something to do with government’s failure in the workplace. Members of government engaged in a shoot-out with the guy who was shot. Government employees administered First Aid to try to save him, but the shooter died of his injuries. And Bernie Sanders within just a few hours wanted more gun control without even knowing the specifics of the case, and was demonizing the NRA.

By the way it all sounded, from the knuckle dragging antics of the shooter to the police on the scene it came across like an episode of the Keystone Cops and more people died as a result. The police were supposed to have a shoot out with an attacker, its part of the job just as a fry guy at a fast food restaurant is supposed to drop fries when an order comes in until the timer goes off. Shooting at people or processing fries are all part of jobs that are out there, but you can tell that when the police start bragging about their “heroics” that government is essentially trying to keep the public in believing more government action instead of dealing with the real problem, like why the gunman wanted to shoot at people in the first place. After all, that is the only motive that matters.

Personally, I don’t trust government employees of any kind to resolve those kinds of problems, because the systems they function from are not fast enough. Military and police departments are often too late and make decisions way behind the curb of needed action because of their command structure. I get the need for police to be there to keep some sort of structure present, which does prevent more of these kinds of events, but they are certainly not the cure all for violence. In this case and in many others, the real solution to gun violence is of course to have more concealed carry holders present who could have taken that shooter out in seconds rather than minutes. And to do that the NRA should be listened to and counseled by government because they are the real professions with a solution, not socialist losers like Bernie Sanders. The NRA knows a lot more about gun handling and in using them for defense than all these government employees that are all at the center of many of these mass shootings.

Whether we are talking about school shootings or public breakdowns like the one at Virginia Beach by Dewayne Craddock—or even going back to the Vegas shooting, the 9/11 terrorist incident, or the San Bernardino massacre that the FBI allowed the media to destroy the scene of the crime for who knows what reason, more trust in more government is the dumbest thing anyone could propose. Often, they are slow to get where the danger is, and when they do get there the body count is higher because for them its just a job, like those idiots at the Parkland school shooting in Florida where the police had gotten used to a pampered lifestyle and driving really nice squad cars. When the bullets started flying, they were hiding and looking for every excuse in the world not to engage. The NRA has much better solutions to those types of matters then the government who fails to act when needed, as fast as they are needed, and also failure to properly understand why shootings occur at all.

But to insist that guns be kept away from the public and that our safety and security be put completely in the hands of the government, whether it’s the local, state or federal level is preposterous. Likely when shootings happen there is always some lunatic out there working for government that will have access to guns while the rest of us don’t, and they statistically are the ones we should be watching the closest. When one of them snaps due to some emotional problem we certainly don’t want to be at their mercy, which was the very first thing that liberal politicians proposed after the Virginia shooting. The real villain will likely be some medication either legal or illegal that set off an emotional imbalance which is what we should always first be looking at. Its too early to tell in this latest case, but marijuana is a common factor in many of the mass killing incidents especially in cases like the Boston Bombers and the shooter in the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Florida a few years ago. The gun is just a tool that losers use to kill other people. The desire to kill other people is the real problem, and government doesn’t have a solution to that because in most cases they look to drug sales to generate vast amounts of tax revenue for their unionized work demands so they don’t really want a real solution. They just want to talk about their long gun battles and their administering of First Aid at the scene of a crime. They don’t really want to solve the problem because they are part of it.

The proposal for citizen gun ownership and carrying them in public is to keep the solution closer to the problems and not expecting to expand government to deal with every little tragedy. In the building at Virginia Beach where this shooting occurred should have been other employees who could have shot the shooter within 30 seconds instead of a half an hour. Fewer people would have been injured and killed. Instead a place like that had metal detectors to keep guns out of people’s hands making it a gun free zone, and an easy target for some deranged lunatic which always pushes up the body count. So why would anybody propose more government control when it was government rules, procedures, and impediments that actually cause the death toll to be as high as it was? Because nobody on the government side of things wants to admit that they can’t detect lunacy in people and to stop them before they become a menace to society, and that when tragedy does strike that they are too late to do anything about it. For the rest of us who without guns, are all potential victims to the stupidity of government employees who are much more concerned about their pensions then running into gunfire to cut minutes off the clock of terror while innocent people are bleeding out waiting for help.

Carrying guns and shooting back when danger presents itself isn’t for everyone. But it is for those who are most prone to use them to save innocent people when the call for it is needed. This case in Virginia Beach is no different. If there had been good guys with a gun there to stop the bad government employee with a gun, then a lot more people would have gone home on that sad Friday afternoon. But unfortunately, that wasn’t the case and many more people died. Then, rather than dealing with why it happened the political class immediately went to more government power by taking away guns and putting more trust into their systematic approach that obviously never works. It’s also why it keeps happening.

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

Golf and Guns

My problem in the world is that I enjoy too many things. But to be successful, traditionally, we have a culture that values specificity, where we immerse ourselves into one particular thing. For instance when it comes to this blog site, there is a political context and a narrative that has to be fulfilled for it to work. And since my audience is largely Trump supporters and Second Amendment advocates, going off the rails too far on a tangent doesn’t fulfil that market necessity. So I talk about guns and my love of Cowboy Fast Draw a lot as opposed to other kinds of sports, like baseball and golf. But to my mind they are all the same. In fact, I view Cowboy Fast Draw as another kind of game not at all unlike golf or bowling. We make games at life to represent our culture in various ways and to me they are all the same. The gun and their use is purely a sporting activity and are directly applicable to other sports. Truth be told, I enjoy every sport though. When I go to a sporting goods store, I am absolutely in heaven because every section is something I enjoy. I love baseball, I love football, I love the outdoor section, I love soccer, golf, I love everything. And to me they are all one big story.

I do resent being put into a classification with people who are limited in their scope of enjoyment of life though. I understand their limits and I hope that at some point they overcome them, but it certainly isn’t my task to yield myself to their handicaps. This is an issue that has come up more than once recently among several people. A politician friend recently asked me to take them out of a video they appeared in many years ago because their life had changed and they now had a much higher social profile, and political enemies were using it against them. One of the weapons that was used against this person was that I am a “gun advocate dressed to kill” which is shown on this blog site quite audaciously. But that’s not how I see it. To me a gun and holster rig with the gunfighting garb of Cowboy Fast Draw is no different from a group of people hitting the golf course with a dress code that would otherwise be laughed at during a visit to any local mall. Or a baseball player stepping off the field and without changing going to a nice restaurant. The baseball outfit would be considered odd in any other public setting except for a game. So the gunslinger outfit to me is something of an American heritage, no different from the Japanese reverence for their samurai or some other warrior reference that a culture wants to remember honorably. If you take away the politics all these sports are fun and have their place and I enjoy them all.

I was thinking about all this while I was looking for a nice golf bag and I found one, a really cool red, white and blue patriotic golf bag that I thought was really cool. Then I found a great baseball bat that was all decked out in patriotic colors, and so it went for several hours that day, I had a great visit to the sporting goods store. But I was also thinking about the objectives of those games and how they fit culturally into our society. And also specifically, they have a very unique style of dress for each of them. Something we have culturally come to accept. Except somehow the way I dress on this blog site was considered by some to be politically dangerous, and divisive. But the game of golf wasn’t? Both sports had the object of hitting targets. In shooting there are obviously targets to hit and you are measured by your success or failure in hitting them. And in golf the whole point of the game is to hit the target in as few strokes possible. Where is the problem with guns, other than they have been made politically volatile by a political class that has sought them out for their own purposes? In America guns are a sport like any other sport and I am personally offended that its even an issue.

One of my very good friends, an old radio guy, who was very talented had to completely erase his social media imprint into saving the Republic of America, which he felt very strongly about. But to work for this company they made him make a choice. A six-figure income or he couldn’t be promoted into this new position and as I held that American flag baseball bat I couldn’t help but think of how dangerous that offer really was. I understand the decision he made; he picked the money. A lot of people would. I obviously haven’t. I’ve had similar offers and I picked the blog, my books, my guns and the generalities of my life because in the end those are the things that the people who really matter to me care about. But such a choice should never have to be made, and honestly, we have been stupid as a civilization to let people make such divisiveness over anything, especially among our sports.

A visit to a sporting goods store shows just how rich our American culture is. I’d love to explore them all but unfortunately there is only time for a few of them. However to allow politics to ruin any of them is what I consider reprehensible. To allow a censorship of some with an emphasis on others is a further hypocrisy. Golf especially in the business world is considered a game for upper management, and I can see why. The goals of the game are very similar to those in the business world. Get to the goal in the shortest way possible using the various tools in your golf bag to get there. We don’t think about the people who actually kill other people with golf clubs every year when we play the game even though often the number is higher than with rifles. Yet liberals want to ban rifles and the game of golf is promoted, especially in business as if the two were radically different. But they aren’t different. Both sports, guns and golf are all about hitting targets. Both represent aspects of culture that are valuable and metaphorical, yet one is attacked and one is supported and that standard is very hypocritical.

I think we should enjoy everything, and I do. And I personally resent any judgments cast against me when what I do is part of the sport of shooting. The views that I value about an America that predates this liberal censorship trend that is going on in our media, companies and our politics is dangerous. That it is even considered radical to proudly display a gun rig that I am very proud of is a disgrace. Now if I was in a picture with that new golf bag which would cost about half as much as the gun and the holster rig then the world would be happy. That is not how things should be and it’s a shame we’ve let it become that way. I’m certainly not going to change the way I do things, but it’s a shame that so many people are forced to, just to fulfill a social norm that has been shaped by anti-American forces. It is my assertion that we shouldn’t have such limits.

Rich Hoffman

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

Guns and Teachers in Florida, an answer to a problem that won’t go away by itself

It passed the House in Florida with a comfortable vote of 65 to 47 after hours of debate. Now it goes to the desk of the governor, Ron DeSantis to be signed. The bill that has now passed and will become law in Florida is their answer to the long debated question about guns in schools, and now at least their teachers will be able to take a course and qualify to carry guns to protect students which is the ultimate answer to the whole school shooting debate. I personally have never thought it was a debatable situation and have said so in my own school district in Ohio. Guns are the answer to the tendency of violence, not the cause. But just like other aspects of culture that involve liberal input, the government tampering on the matter has created a more dangerous situation, not less of one and the only thing that needed debate was how people are afraid of guns are going to have to deal with a world that made them in the first place, out of necessity. The eradication of guns from society was never an option. Having guns in more places more often is, because of the nature of humanity, which invented them for a reason.

Listening to the debates against guns in schools in Florida was interesting. It was all emotionally driven and largely preprogrammed. The fear based diatribes were not conducive to a proper sentiment. In essence, we know from trial and error that we cannot trust the government network to protect us, and that includes police, firefighters, FBI agents, the military—if given the opportunity to fail, they often will. As it is true that we do hire those types of people for our government the truth is that they are often too slow to react or when they do, they don’t have enough skin in the game to act properly. So when there is the potential for danger, those with the most to lose and who are at the heart of a matter should be armed with deadly force so that they can protect whatever threat might come about. It’s a perfectly logical element to a problem that permeates human thought, the temptation to abuse other people for failures of others.

During the recent California synagogue attack by a nineteen-year-old kid it was a border patrol agent who was in attendance who was able to put a stop to the rampage and thwart the advance of terrorism, otherwise a lot more people would have died. There is no way to deal with mass shootings but to confront them at the point of the attack. Waiting for a 911 response simply isn’t an option. Violence has to be confronted, not avoided, and the fantasy that guns can be removed from society and that therefore opportunities for attackers to conduct themselves in such violent ways will be diminished, is simply a false hope evolved under a premise of utopia that is grounded in reality as a fantasy story. Guns are not the villains; they are the answer to villainy.

As everyone knows I have a long history with public schools and feeling that the teachers are overpaid and are dangerous in what they teach our children. But I have been willing to say that I’d support pay increases for teachers in my school district in Ohio if they are willing to carry guns while on the job, and taking on that extra responsibility. That would prevent mass shootings. It may not prevent the intent to violence, but it could minimize the impact such as what happened at that California synagogue. When the danger erupts a person comfortable with a gun needs to be there to confront the attacker. And in essence, that is the only logical answer. Nothing else will work, not metal detectors, not more school security because like the police, it’s just a job and that doesn’t always promise that in a tenuous situation, they will act properly—and certainly not more gun laws. The reliance on more centralized authority, which is always the liberal perspective gives precisely the opposite result. Only people who are highly motivated to solve a problem like that, who are in that life and death situation can really be trusted to act in their own self-interest. And when they do, they need a gun to perform that task. It was out of protecting self-interest that guns were invented in the first place and why they are such an important part of American culture.

Schools and places of worship, or any place where would be attackers know that people do not have guns are made so much more dangerous by the insistence that gun restrictions be present. Anywhere that a lot of people conduct themselves, guns should be frequent. To my experience even at bars and nightclubs, people who become gun owners don’t go around trying to shoot everyone. Guns require discipline and those who learn to use them become better people not worse in the exchange. Most of these young attackers such as end up in these school and synagogue shootings do not have that background. Even in a bar fight it’s not the NRA supporters who pull out a gun and start firing. Using guns tends to make people more responsible, not less. So gun owners are less prone to suddenly become a lunatic while at such places. More guns are better for society, not the other way around. Most gun owners who carry are by default much more careful about engaging in a conflict with another person because they are aware they are carrying deadly force and that responsibility tends to regulate irresponsible behavior. Even for that driver who cuts you off at an intersection and they give you the finger in anger provoking you. Gun carriers tend to blow it off because they know that they have the ability to control the situation and that self-assuredness brings about a much more mature outcome.

The problems occur when you take away that natural tendency and replace it with government enforcement which not even they want. The responsibility for good conduct needs to fall somewhere and experience tells us that people who carry guns tend to be the type of people who will take responsibility for a situation quicker than waiting for a centralized authority to respond to danger. So in all public places guns are the answer to less violence. Not fewer guns and more government authority. The difficult things for liberals to admit to themselves is that more government isn’t the answer. More cops in schools, more people to work security who might end up paying union dues for their job at a metal detector—those are not options because they cost too much and they do nothing to solve the problem. We’ve seen it too often, when gun fire does erupt, cops aren’t always willing to throw themselves in front of the bullets. To some of them, often a ratio that is not acceptable, it’s just a job to them and like the cops in Parkland Florida, they run and hide like everyone else. But not everyone is like that, some people are naturally inclined to leadership and those are the people we want carrying guns, everywhere. And its good to see that Florida is moving in that direction. Maybe the rest of the country will get it and follow before more school shootings occur.

Rich Hoffman

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

Guns Teach Responsiblity, if we want a safe world, ban liberalism

I was just a little impressed that my youngest grandson wanted desperately to see what I was doing at my workbench and decided to help me reload some ammunition for my Cowboy Fast Draw practices. It’s kind of a reload 101 type of thing that isn’t difficult for an adult to learn, but for a 2-year-old, I wouldn’t expect him to put a wax bullet into a .45 caliber casing then put a primer in place for shooting. I thought it was just a little advanced. But the young guy wanted nothing to do but what I was so he sat up on my bench stool and went to work helping me eventually taking over all together loading up 50 rounds all by himself. We had a great experience together and so it has been like that in American life really since the beginning. Young people learning from older people the basics of survival in the world and having fun with the exchange of information. It was a reminder to me exactly what guns mean to our culture and how important they have traditionally been in teaching young people basic values and skills in life.

Guns have been in a lot of talks lately and most of the diatribes I have found disgusting, especially the case where the liberal Colorado legislature has voted in a Red Flag law for which the governor is expected to sign. Sheriff Steven Reams from Weld County has indicated that as a member of law enforcement, he will refuse to enforce the law even if he must go to jail for it. I would hate to see that happen, but the Sheriff’s position is the correct one, the Colorado Red Flag law is an abomination of legal abuse, grossly anti-American Constitution in its premise and deserves serious scrutiny on a national level. The premise for the Red Flag law is that judges would be allowed to take guns away from people who are found to be a danger to themselves or others. The provocation of such a status would purely be the word of mouth of family, friends or neighbors. So if some such person recommends that you are a menace in some way, a judge can take away your guns and put you as a gun owner in a position to prove your innocence just to maintain them.

This law literally comes from a state that has gone to pot. Colorado as everyone knows by now has turned into a state turning toward recreational marijuana to raise additional revenue but also to fulfill a long time progressive dream, the legalization of mind altering substances such as pot which in my opinion is far more dangerous than any gun would be. Sure, guns shoot bullets that could kill people, but destroying a person’s mind is far more catastrophic toward the ambitions of mankind than any gun could or would be. That makes this Red Flag law in Colorado that much worse because it likely won’t be a sane person making assessments about the danger of an individual and whether or not a judge should get involved in gun ownership, but the chances are it will be some drug crazed lunatic high on life with a barely functioning mind induced by the effects of marijuana. Imagine the illusion this gives the typical stoner, handing them judicial power over their neighbor so that protection of private property would be stripped away in favor of the loser hippie and their fenceless world view of free love, free education, and free money. All these pieces fit into the same ugly puzzle so its good to see a sheriff willing to put up a fight. But the real punches have to come from the nation at large. Colorado used to be a nice state, but it is becoming like California more and more, just a cesspool of liberalism that is going out of fashion, but not fast enough to leave behind some residual damage.

Ohio is getting gun laws right with its own approaches which is moving toward not even needing a permit to carry a gun. I personally don’t see any danger in guns, they are the paramount foundation of western civilization and they protect intellectually the premise of our republic. (We are not a democracy) Gun ownership has typically been the foundation of good family upbringing and served as a natural bond between generations such as the example I proved regarding my grandson. That activity is a normal thing for an American family to do together and it has been since the start of our country. The people who are against guns happen also to be against families and are pro-abortion. They are for drug use. They are for wealth confiscation and redistribution. They are for open borders and a loss of American sovereignty in the world. Essentially, they are against everything that makes America a great country because they want to undo the nature of it and change it into something much more European.

Guns should be carried everywhere and used when needed to stop bad guys from ruining the world. Sure there is great responsibility in gun ownership but that’s part of the beauty of it. The act of learning about guns from a responsible adult has been paramount in shaping the young minds of particularly boys in our culture. When things go wrong such as they do during mass shootings it’s not hard to identify why people become lunatics and use guns to hurt people maliciously, the failures are often in liberalism, in defunct fatherless homes where a loose mother loses control of her son because there is no father, or the men in the young boy’s life are losers that can’t help the young person affirm himself into adulthood. Or that the people who have lost their minds put too much trust into public education, public wealth redistribution, and functioning as a mindless automaton high on drugs and not taking responsibility for their own lives. The real solutions to a dangerous society is to ban liberalism, inspire families to stay together for the sake of the family as a whole unit, and to put guns in the hands of children as soon as possible and teach them how to use them and make that understanding one of their first acts of responsibility in the world. Once they learn to handle guns correctly from a father, a grandfather, an uncle or even a family friend, they will then as young men and women be able to go out into the world and act responsibly in other aspects of life. That’s how things are supposed to work and Colorado is going in the wrong direction.

It was for me nice to see the lights coming on in my grandson. For him sitting at his grandpas work bench reloading ammunition and watching me shoot a bit was a treasure he’ll carry with him for the rest of his life and he’ll likely continue to want as much of it as he can get. And it is my job to make sure he gets it and gets it right. Guns aren’t dangerous, they are great teaching instruments of how to live responsibly in the world. We can’t look to government to decide what kind of world we should live in the way that liberals propose it. It’s not a judge’s responsibility to take away guns off the whim of some pot head’s opinion. And it’s not for government to step into a family and rob them of the intellectual discourse that often does happen when the older generation teaches the young how to live in the world with the basic skills learned during the transaction. At the heart of the gun control debate is on how we control danger in our world. Liberals want more centralized control. Conservatives want more individualized control. But what we end up with shouldn’t be a combination of the two which most case-law on the Second Amendment comes to. There is a right and wrong answer. Both sides aren’t partially correct. And you can see that correct answer on my grandson’s face, and that is all lawmakers need to know.

Rich Hoffman

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