• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    July 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « May    
     1
    2345678
    9101112131415
    16171819202122
    23242526272829
    3031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    wearenegroes on Will Hillary Clinton Run Again…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    esgort on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    IB on Why Gun Ownership is Biblical…
    NEW White House Insi… on Hitler and the muslim bro…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

I Support Law Enforcement Except When…

In general, and on principal, I support my police, sheriff, and state troopers.  However, and here’s the big “but,” when they choose to enforce unconstitutional laws that infringe upon our Constitutional rights, I will NOT support them, and think they should step down lest they become an enemy of the citizenry.

Typically if someone has a problem with what the police are doing, rather than get upset with the police they need to get upset with the legislators that wrote the law.  However, when it comes to clearly unconstitutional law, law enforcement officers have a choice.  They face the same choice that military members face when given an unlawful order.  Do they carry out the order and say they were “just following orders” when the crap hits the fan?  Or do they choose not to follow those orders, risking more immediate consequences from their overlords?  If the oath you swore mentions something about the Constitution, then the choice in this case is clear.

These New Jersey officers are CHOOSING to make themselves an enemy of the Constitution, and of the citizenry, by willfully denying 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendment rights, to name a few.  Unless confidence in the legal system is restored, and if these encroachments on our liberties continue, what will logically follow is something no one wants to see.
+



 

NJ State Police Attempt To Confiscate Resident’s Guns without a Warrant

Gun Confiscation Squads
NJ State Police Attempt To Confiscate Resident’s Guns without a Warrant.

Millstone Township, New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- An Army veteran father says State Police tried to confiscate his firearms without a court order or warrant just because his son was overheard discussing school shooting news with a classmate.

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Major Brian Polite, a spokesperson for the New Jersey State Police, stated that the troopers that conducted the investigation determined there was no need for the weapons to be seized. He also said he could not comment on whether the incident was related to the new gun laws.

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights.  ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

Cottrell said if the school had contacted him and talked about what had happened instead of going to the police first, “it would have been worked out right then and there.” He said he also would have understood if he’d gotten a call from the State Police to learn more, instead of the late night visit to his home.

Link to article: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/07/nj-state-police-attempt-to-confiscate-resident-guns-without-a-warrant/#axzz5L37Kp0NA

Advertisements

Why Some People Need a Good Killing…A Biblical Defense for Self Defense

Just because you are a Christian doesn’t mean you need to roll over and let someone kill you.  You have a right, and a responsibility to defend yourself, your family, and your neighbors.

“To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.”

+



Why Some People Need a Good Killing…A Biblical Defense for Self Defense

Just because we’re good people doesn’t mean we won’t kill you – Rick Grimes

Right. So, maybe a Biblical defense for self-defense shouldn’t begin with quotation from the protagonist in a televised Zombie apocalypse set in the dystopian near-future. But, when I heard Rick say that, it was real. There’s no room for pretense when zombies are kicking down the doors to your rickety old barn.

We may not have zombies kicking down our barn doors, but like Rick Grimes, we live in a world where pretense will get you killed. Normalcy bias will get your killed. Pacifism will get you killed. Your pretty little philosophies and pontifications will get you killed. We live in a world of bad guys, albeit they’re not the walking dead. But, they are dangerous. And frankly, it’s time Christian leaders recognize that danger and stop being such metrosexual nancies without a modicum of moral clarity when dogmatizing our followers on the WWJD of martyrdom. In short, Christians leaders need to look less like Reverend Lovejoy and more like the Machine Gun Preacher. What you may not realize while locked away in your pastor’s study is that our world looks more like Rick Grimes’ than Homer Simpson’s. Sometimes, people need a good killing.

What I need you to do, if you’re to stomach the rest of this article, is take any notion you have of a Big Lebowski-looking Christ who rides the clouds on Falcor the Luck Dragon, handing out puppies and skittles out of Santa’s bottomless gift bag and put that image into the dustbin of your mind. Stop tasting the rainbow, put down the Rachel Held Evans book, and gird up your loins like a man. Instead, focus on the actual Christ, the one whose feet were caked with mud and muck and suggested his disciples go out and buy a sword on the night of his crucifixion, knowing they would soon be outlaws and in need of protection (Luke 22:36). Yes, focus on Christ, who is the second person of the Trinity and who transcends in ancient divinity the temporality of his earthly walk, and let us develop a Bible-long systematic theology of martyrology and self-defense.

As much as Jesus Seminar liberals would like to limit the teachings of Christ to his three-year ministry chronicled in the Gospel accounts, the reality for orthodox Christians is that every word of the Bible should be colored in Red. Being Trinitarians, we believe in a Triune God consisting of three Persons making up the Godhead (Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9, KJV). The Persons of the Trinity, consisting of and being in themselves God, are at perfect unity and harmony together (Isaiah 61:1-2). Each one performs and acts according to the same will (John 6:38). In short, the words of God the Father, who inspired the Sacred Texts through God the Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), is indeed the will and word of God the Son (John 1:1,14).

What this means is that to understand the teachings of God the Son, without juxtaposing his teaching with the teachings of God the Father, requires a systematic teaching on the subject of martyrology and self-defense throughout the entire canon of Scripture.

While it is true that Jesus told Peter to put away His sword because he must be crucified for the sins of the world (Matthew 26:52), he told them that very night to buy a sword in advance of their coming persecution (Luke 22:36). While Jesus’ exhortation that we turn the cheek from insult (Matthew 5:39) has been taken by pacifists (defined by JD’d dictionary as “those who let others die for their lives and liberties”) to be the locus classicus text for passive non-resistance, a robust theology of persecution reveals that that the thrice-holy God has indeed called his people to self-defense, protection of the innocent through violent means, and promotion of the general welfare through war. There is no logical reason to believe that God’s call to arms throughout Scripture has been abrogated in this current dispensation, for God does not change (Malachi 3:6) and his Word is immutable (Hebrews 6:17). Furthermore, the call to martyrdom that we see repeated throughout the New Testament does not imply that our death for the sake of the cross be a peaceful surrendering of ourselves over to injustice or voluntary death.

A thorough analysis of God’s divine hand guiding the body-politic of ancient Israel reveals an understood right of self-defense. We are to deliver the innocent from those that seek them harm (Proverbs 82:4). While murder is clearly prohibited (Leviticus 24:16-17), the taking of a murderer’s life is not prohibited and neither is it murder (Genesis 9:6). The qualifying distinctions between killing and murder are found in places like Exodus 21, Numbers 35, and Deuteronomy 19. In the commonwealth laws of Israel, delivered by God, one had the right to take the life of one breaking into their home in the night (Exodus 22:2). The general equity of this Old Testament law (to use words from the London Baptist and Westminister Confession) – that is, what is moral, universal and perpetual in nature – is that it is morally acceptable to take the life of one who will harm the innocent.

Even though our enemies are not flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12), the same is true for the Israelites as they were rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls, when they were instructed to arm themselves for potential conflict (Nehemiah 4:17). The realization of spiritual enemies did not negate the reality that there might be some people in need of a good killing, and God’s people were to be prepared to fight back. When Haman’s plans went awry because of Esther’s obedience, God’s people were instructed to kill those who sought their lives (Esther 9:2-5). When Abraham’s family was in jeopardy, he raised an army and killed their captors (Genesis 14:14-18) and was later blessed by God for that action.

To die a victim in the name of martyrdom, when the perpetrator will likely go on to kill more innocent people, is not martyrdom – it is cowardice. A man that does not care for his own family, in particular, is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8) – and calling the police while your family is being assaulted falls short of the biblical responsibilities of manhood.

David’s hands were taught to operate a lethal weapon by God (Psalm 18:24). The limp-wristed effiminazi Intelligentsia calling for the disarmament of Christians today are a far cry from the man who was after God’s own heart (Acts 13:22). And while we do not trust in our weapons, but in God (Psalm 44:7), this presupposes the ownership of weapons. On any given day, I may carry a number of different lethal weapons, but my trust is in God that they will fire properly, hit their target, or in God’s kind providence, I’ll find their use unnecessary.

Furthermore, we must understand that Christ’s martyrdom is wholly unlike our own. Christ’s death was a sacrifice, and offering it up bought the souls of men. Our life cannot be given in the same manner of Christ (for we neither lay it down nor pick it up of our own accord), and neither does it propitiate for any sins. Although we are, indeed, sheep sent out to wolves, the Good Shepherd never intended and neither does he ask us to provide a pacifistic buffet of mutton for any wolf that would seek to devour us.

That a martyr may resist, does not make him less of a martyr. That a man doesn’t resist when his family is in peril, does make him less of a man.

In light of the shooting at UCC, I call on all Christian leaders to stop the liberal pontificating on how guns caused this problem and call them to consider on why a lack of guns (along with a murderous, depraved heart as the root issue) caused this problem. Christ has called us to love our neighbor (Mark 12:31), and if you are unprepared to defend your neighbor due to dainty sensibilities or the irrational fear of using a firearm, I’d suggest you do not love your neighbors as much as you ought.

jdsig-1024x284

+
Link to article:  http://pulpitandpen.org/2015/10/02/why-some-people-need-a-good-killing-a-biblical-defense-for-self-defense/


“Black Lives Matter” Keith Lamont Scott LIE Unravels, Had STOLEN Gun and Restraining Order

What?!?!? You mean the saggy pants savages got it wrong AGAIN???

This is EXACTLY why I believe the police version of the story before I believe the hood rat story EVERY time.  99.9999999% of the time, the police get it RIGHT. You say “hands up don’t shoot,” and that turns out to be based on a complete lie. The daughter of this guy says “You shot my m@#$%^&*!#@n daddy, who is a m@#$%^&*!#@n cripple and can’t do nothin’, and he was just sittin’ there readin’ a m@#$%^&*!#@n book, and he didn’t even have a gun,” which turns out to be ANOTHER lie. Turns out that Keith Lamont Scott was carrying a STOLEN gun, and had a restraining order against him by his wife.  Nice guy.  You may be unhappy that Lemonjello or Fauxniqua got shot, but if they were engaging in criminal behavior, or acting in a threatening manner towards police, THEY DESERVED IT!!! NO ONE believes you because you keep trying to excuse the BAD BEHAVIOR of yourselves and those in your community instead of policing yourselves, and being responsible for your own behavior.

Henceforth, until you start caring enough about yourselves, your friends, and your families to act in a responsible, lawful manner, call out those who don’t, and stop killing more of your own through abortion and gang violence than all the white police officers could kill in a THOUSAND YEARS, you can find sympathy for your plight in the dictionary between “something” and “syphilis,” if you even know what a dictionary is and how to read it.

If that offends you, go find your “safe space,” curl up in a little ball, and suck your thumb. If you riot and loot, I HOPE YOU GET SHOT.



Keith Scott WAS carrying a stolen gun, police say – and his wife filed for a restraining order against him saying he was armed, violent and had threatened to kill her

  • Keith Scott’s gun had been reported stolen, authorities said on Monday
  • A breaking and entering suspect told officials he had sold him the gun 
  • His wife Rakeyia got a restraining order in October last year, records show
  • She wrote: ‘He carries a 9mm black’ and said he had hit her and a child
  • Scott, 43, was shot and killed Tuesday after a confrontation with Charlotte, North Carolina police 

Keith Scott was carrying a stolen gun when he was shot and killed during a confrontation with police in Charlotte, North Carolina, authorities have said.

Continue reading

Shetamia Taylor: A Woman Who GETS What The Rest of the Anti-Police Protestors Need to Understand

Shetamia Taylor took her sons to the “Black Lives Matter” protest in Dallas.  You don’t go to a BLM rally unless you agree with their anti-police message, and I suspect that until the moment the shooting started that Ms. Taylor did indeed agree with the BLM message.  Ms. Taylor was shot while watching at least two police officers get shot trying to protect her and others around her.  While she lay bleeding and wounded, other police officers shielded her and her son with their own bodies.

Listen to Ms. Taylor’s press conference as she describes the events of that night.  Watch and listen to her as the powerful realization dawns on her that she and those following the anti-police BLM movement had/have it all wrong.

“Protests” Continue in Ferguson and St. Louis

Why are they protesting?  They are being ruled by the people they have elected for decades.  Whose fault is their current set of circumstances?
+



 

Ferguson Protests Continue

Obama May Seek UN Help to Disarm Americans

From this point forward, we must resist ANYONE who tries to take our guns. No matter who they are.  Whether they call themselves UN “peace enforcers,” military, national guard, police, or some other form of “law enforcement,” if they come for our guns they are now the enemy.  You can make tyranny legal, as we have seen many times through history, and we are seeing again right here, right now.

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
— Declaration of Independence

“When tyranny becomes law, resistance becomes duty.”
–Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Continue reading

Burning the Strawman of Gun Control: Part 1

Why would any civilian ever need a high capacity magazine?  For the same reason that police officers do.

  1. One shot may not be enough to stop the threat
  2. You don’t always hit what you aim at, especially under stress
  3. There may be more than one assailant
  4. In a self-defense situation, or firefight with a criminal, the only thing you want to focus on is your target, and pulling the trigger.  Reloading or clearing malfunctions could be a deadly distraction.

STRAWMAN:  “Criminals use “assault weapons” with high capacity magazines to slaughter people.

REALITY:  The mass killers have all used pistols with standard capacity magazines.

There are dozens of news stories where police fired dozens, perhaps HUNDREDS of rounds in firefights with a SINGLE criminal.  If our supposedly highly trained police officers can’t subdue a criminal with one shot, how would civilians defending themselves in their homes be expected to?

So, WHY do politicians REALLY want these magazine bans?  Control.  Liberals/progressives have been slowly chipping away at our ability to own firearms for over 75 years.  They know they can never completely control us as long as we have the means to resist.  When only the police and military have that kind of firepower, we are defenseless.  Not only against them, but more immediately against criminals who DON’T OBEY LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
+


Calling out WTIC’s John Rowland on a 30-round magazine ban

Posted by on January 9, 2013 at 12:01 am | Share via e-mail

The title of this post may sound a bit harsh, but I don’t mean it to be. I’m trying to ensure this post gets noticed and might result in a written response from the former Connecticut governor concerning his opinion on 30-round, and other high-capacity magazines for rifles and pistols.

Update: Plenty of traffic for this post, but I ask readers to step out of their comfort zone and share this post via Faceboook, social media and email not just with those who agree, but include the gun control crowd and ask for their response. Get the information out there!

During the last week or so, John Rowland’s afternoon radio show on WTIC 1080 has been filled with callers and discussion about high-capacity magazines and the Connecticut law that holds private, the names and addresses of those with Connecticut’s State Permit to Carry Pistols and Revolvers. I’ll admit I have listened to only a few minutes here and there, but it’s clear Rowland thinks permit holder information should remain private, and gun owners who want access to high-capacity magazines are wrong, stubborn, and have been doing such a bad job explaining their point of view, listeners may think it’s a good idea to have the permit information made public.

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: