----Full story on this conspiracy is at Inland Valley Daily Bulletin----
There are several layers to this Machiavellian scheme, so don't fall for the hype just yet. Fact: San Francisco is a training ground for California anti-gun politicians. Why does a small city the size of S.F. need so many "supervisors"?. Simple. To provide gun-grabbers with enough political capital to enable them to run for State office, thereby "stacking the deck" against long-suffering law-abiding California gun owners/2A Rights supporters(!). Harris & Leno are both products of that corrupt "socialist network", along with several already befouling the seats of State government in Sacramento. San Francisco has tried multiple times to ban handguns and Semi-Automatics, and every time has been slammed hard and lost, so who is to say how far back this particular scheme was conceived?. Infiltrating on the State level (not unlike the Catholic Church was infiltrated by a secret gay child molester cult) "San Francisco Values" can now be exerted state-wide, but first, as the masters of propaganda, the Soviets & Nazis knew, suitable villains needed to be created to justify action and support from the gullible dupes to be manipulated. Tried and true buzzwords to create terror, i.e. the so called mythical "assault weapons" and fear of the "crazies" ("Mental Illness") and the "hot-headed" (Those subject to "restraining orders") combine to make a perfect "unimpeachable" population to be targeted, a technique lifted from the original "Mothers Against Drunk Driving", creating a "who could be against that" mentality, that quickly devolved into the money-making machine we have now, ensuring everyone gets paid (Lawyers, Counties, Courts, the State, etc) except the poor sap who got caught, turned upside down and shaken by the ankles until all their cash falls out, then jailed to boot, all other the color of authority, a scam the Mafia could admire. Before you get self-righteous and fall into their trap, stop and ask yourself these things. Mental: Some people do have depression and psychotic breaks and some people recover from them never to have another episode. Where do you draw the line to decide that the person will lose their rights permanently because of an incident? Seems simple to me, and already in place. If ongoing outpatient supervision needing drugs to control the persons behavior is necessary, it is similar to parole. Rights should be restored once that condition is resolved. The people targeted in this operation are not being held to such a standard, however, therefore it equals bait & switch with perfect propaganda to fool the folks, so don't be a sucker for that one. Restraining orders: A presumption of criminality, the person here is obviously not a felon or they would not have legal guns in possession. Divorces and relationships can be messy, and evil tactics, often encouraged by Shyster lawyers, can be used to take a position of advantage between the feuding parties, particularly when children are at stake, and restraining orders are routinely used as leverage to look good in front of a Judge, often ruining careers when the person may need a firearm in the course of employment, what better way to hammer the opposition than this, an administrative injunction used to overrule an unalienable right?. The fact is, you do not lose those rights, and in a perfect world, at best only temporarily, but this is not a perfect world and such a situation is always in flux until finally adjudicated in court. Again, we have a "straw man" to be beaten up on as a villain to justify taking their firearms under color of authority. Again, there are no limitations here under this scheme addressing this issue, just grandstanding finger pointing by the politicians to get you worked up over an "obvious bad-person". You don't lose your unalienable rights merely due to having a temporary restraining order taken out on you, it is not a felony. Many have to sue to get their firearms returned to them, proving that even the so-called "professionals" are so propagandized they have to be forced by law to abide by the law!. Don't be a sucker and fall for that one either. So... Here we go again, a carefully orchestrated publicity stunt, with high-profile arrest numbers, leading to the photo-op (of course displaying captured weapons with faceless uniforms & badges standing in the background to create the image that this is "supported by law-enforcement" for "credibility") then the sleight of hand in earnest, the pushing of another "law" that dips into the taxpayers pockets, actually politicians using their office ("Under Color of Authority") to campaign in support of another "law" that if only enacted will "finally solve all our problems", as all the previous hundreds of do-nothing "laws" were claimed for when they were pushed, forced and/or scammed on the public, with the resultant lukewarm effect on actual violent crime but maximum burden only on the law-abiding gun-owning population of the state. California has always taken the lead in schemes to convert law-abiding gun-owners into criminals with the stroke of an unconstitutional pen, always attempting to market these schemes nationwide (and succeeding in some cases, such as Clinton/Feinstien Axis using the California model for the Federal AWB). The key many do not understand is that they can get away with much more dirt in California simply because the State does not have a specific RKBA clause in it's State constitution, a loophole exploited regularly in California, but runs head first into the 2nd Amendment on the national level.----
Now, my system crashed and I lost all the next few well crafted paragraphs originally done, so I'm tired and frustrated at losing all that work, need sleep, and am gonna' cut it short and just say...Don't fall for the bull, tyranny over liberty is not acceptable...Stand against it (S9)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.