Monday, January 27, 2020

Are You 18-20 This Election? Your Vote MAY Count- BUT YOU DON'T! Not To the Candidates or Your Government

All across the United States, there are young people looking forward to their FIRST Presidential Election.   I remember the first time I voted for President.  I thought, "Wow! I am an adult and now MY opinion on who should be President counts!"   The difference between when I voted, and when 18 to 21 year-old's vote this year?   Well, the Candidates and the Government were not as "obvious" DO NOT CARE ONE LITTLE BIT about the voting block of those aged 18 to 21.
So, Who Cares What Under 21's Think?

Let me be clear with what I am saying.  Your Government and almost EVERY Candidate for President do not care what 18-21 year-old's think, nor do they care how you will vote!  How do I know? Well, just a few weeks ago Your Government said that you may be an adult at 18, but you are no longer old enough to decide for yourself if you want to use, or continue to use tobacco, or vaping products.   And that is just the latest restriction on those under 21.

Mr. Michael Bloomberg is pushing this even further.   Mr. Bloomberg does not want the 2nd Amendment to apply to those under 21.   Now, to be fair, Mr. Bloomberg does not want the 2nd Amendment to exist at all.  However, Bloomberg has been pushing for those under 21 to be restricted from purchasing ANY firearm.   Federal Law says only those 21 or older can purchase handguns.  But Bloomberg wants it to be 21 for ALL Firearms, and some States have actually passed laws that prevent anyone under 21 from purchasing any and ALL Firearms.  Most of the Democratic Candidates for President think this is actually a good idea (it appears that Mayor Pete Buttigieg has not made any significant proposals to restrict firearms).

So, lets look at the ENTIRE picture.   You are 20 years old.   You are married (you may get married at 18).  You have a child (You are legally allowed to make decisions for your child).   You have a job and therefore you pay taxes (I guess it is NO surprise that the government believes anyone of any age should be required to pay taxes).   BUT, if you live in a rough area, buying any type firearm to defend your family is against the law in some jurisdictions (and Bloomberg wants it to be NATIONWIDE).   BUT WAIT! What if you BREAK the law and try to purchase a gun in one of these Jurisdictions?  Basically you are going to be charged with something like "Attempted Firearms Purchase by a MINOR" - you are only 20 after all, not 21.   But don't worry, YOU WILL BE PROSECUTED AS AN ADULT!!!!

You may not be allowed to smoke or vape. BUT, you ARE old enough for a "lethal injection" for capital offenses.

Mr. Bloomberg wants to make sure that the 2nd Amendment applies only to those 21 or older (for now), but DON"T WORRY, your Government can DRAFT into the Armed Forces at 18 or you may ENLIST (and yes they will issue you a gun). 

You may not DRINK at 18, but you can file bankruptcy.  You can sign contracts. You are COMPLETELY LIABLE AS AN ADULT. But you really aren't.

Of course none of this really matters.  Those of us that the Government listens to (somewhat) are all over 21 already!   Many are Senior Citizens and OF COURSE no one is going to try taking OUR rights away. 

EXCEPT For those ideas that Mr. Bloomberg has- ideas he put forth in New York!  Like telling Adults that they were not able to decide for themselves what size DRINKS they can buy at convenience stores.   And what about his ideas that some people may be TOO OLD to buy guns.  To be fair, there has been no mention of that in these elections.  But lets face it, BLOOMBERG and JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE wants to RESTRICT current gun laws-- not just for those under 21- for ALL of us (again, it appears that Mayor Pete Buttigieg has NOT made any significant proposals to restrict firearms).

The Government and the Presidential Candidates KNOW that 18-20 year-old's are NOT going to run to the polls and vote.   The Government and the Presidential Candidates KNOW they can pass ANY LAWS THEY WANT restricting the rights and privileges of 18-20 year-old's without having to deal with any blow-back in the polls.  Oh, they may pay lip service to these "young adults" and talk about how it is THEY who will live with climate change, but if they really were worried about what those young adult voters would do. they would have taken away young adults ability to use nicotine or to VAPE to QUIT SMOKING (Like the United Kingdom ENCOURAGES) until a NON-ELECTION year. The fact that this was done just prior to an election means politicians will campaign bragging how they placed restrictions on VOTING AGED ADULTS and say it is a GOOD thing.

Once upon a time, Government restricting voters for legal activities, or Candidates like BLOOMBERG campaigning that they want to REPEAL enumerated rights would have sparked outrage. Now it is status quo.

What's next?  It's just people in their 90's who are being restricted....

Or maybe 25 is when one should have the full rights of an adult....

But maybe the Catholic Church is right to prevent those over 79 from voting in Papal Elections... perhaps that should be a rule for (fill in the blank).

Now before anyone gets worked up, remember, its 18-20 year-old's that government is restricting.

They may be able to vote, and they may be legal adults, but, \they are just kids....

Monday, December 30, 2019

Over 40 Years of Discrimination Corrected, Despite Question of Mootness

It is amazing what excuses can be used to "justify" institutionalized discrimination.  Although one often hears arguments of "it wasn't really discrimination" or "that's how society was back then- but society has since changed," using an argument of "mootness" to allow the discrimination to continue causes one to question the very nature of "justice."

However, after 42 years, this injustice was finally corrected.

This issue is one that began over 42 years ago.   Three individuals were involved in a military operation of some significance.  One individual was the pilot of a single seat craft, while the other two were pilot and co-pilot/gunner of the second craft.  The two pilots were honored; medals were conferred.  The third individual, who was in-fact a different race than the two pilots, received some honors, but no medals were awarded.

When the question of  why the copilot had not been awarded a medal first came up, the General Officers involved stated there was an old order they were following that allowed them to award medals directly and immediately, in cases where the act of heroism was obvious and there would be no doubt that the Senate Committee which would eventually review the endorsement for the medal, would approve (this was an older order that had been put in place to reduce the number of medals being awarded posthumously-sometimes these men would have to wait years for the medal to be awarded due to the time it took items to work through the Senate).  The General Officers argued that the pilots' actions were clear cut .  The General Officers then argued that although normally the endorsement of the award of the medal would be sent to the Senate Committee for their endorsement, that committee had been dissolved, and therefore there was no one to award the medal.  Therefore the award of the medal was now moot.  They argued this had nothing to do with the race differences.

Fast forward 42 years.  Both men the copilot flew with and fought with have since died in action.  Quite literally, the copilot is perhaps the only one from the original mission left.  For years he had to put up with comments that can be best worded as discriminatory because of who he is.  But just before Christmas, we found out that everything changed.

General Chewbacca was finally awarded a medal for his actions at the Battle of Yavin 4.  I had a chance to have a short interview with General Chewbacca. 

Carden: General Chewbacca, first I want to thank you for your time.   I wanted to talk to you about what some might think is a sore subject, you not being awarded a medal after the Battle of Yavin 4.  What were your thoughts at the time?

General Chewbacca:  Rarrr, Rarr, Grrr Rrarr! Wa, Rrra Grrr. Warrr Rrr. Gerrr Rrar Wrar Rurrr. 

Carden: I definitely will agree that Luke and Han deserved the medal, but many of us felt you did as well...

General Chewbacca: Arowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Growwk Vaaarrk Waaark Raarghhh

Carden:  Again, you make a good point, but historically, there has been some very pointed discrimination because of your race- I mean, calling you a "big walking carpet."
General Chewbacca:  Raarghhh Waaark Growwk Varowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh!

Carden:  Absolutely not, General, I would never say anything or imply anything about, the Princess, General Leia Solo.  So your opinion is that was "taken out of context?"

General Chewbacca:   Growwk Raarghhh Waaark Varowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk  Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh! Warrr Rrr. Gerrr Rrar

Carden:  Yes, General, I do like my shoulder joints in the place they are.  If I may be so bold, though perhaps the "idea" that Wookies have been known to pull arms out of sockets when they are upset, is one of the symptoms of the public views of Wookies?

General Chewbacca: Varowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Growwk Vaaarrk Waaark Raarghhh

Carden: That is my point exactly, if we look the number of arms that Jedi removed... Take a look at General Kenobi, he cut off people's arms from Coruscant to Tatooine, but we never see you removing someones arm from their sockets.  Yet people always bring up "not upsetting a Wookie!"

General Chewbacca: Aowwww Awwrk Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Growwk Vaaarrk Waaark Raarghhh Varowrk Raarghh Yawrrrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr 

Carden: So with that, I suppose the question is what is next for you?

General Chewbacca: Nrawwwwk Nowrrrrragh Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Waaaaarrk Nrawwwwk  Aowwww Awwrk Rawrrk Vowarrrk Narowrrr Aowwww Awwrk Growwk

Carden: Of course, General, the issue of "body hair shaming" is one that you are uniquely qualified to address.  We all wish you luck with this important issues. May the force be with you.

General Chewbacca: Waaark Growwk Varowrk Raarghh

Monday, December 2, 2019

SCOTUS Case of the Term: NYSRPA v NYC

Today the Supreme Court will hear what may be "THE CASE" of this term, and perhaps the case of the decade: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City.  The issue before the
The Right to Arm Bears
Court? What does the Second Amendment mean when it says the right to "bear arms?"  This question was not specifically addressed in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) nor in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).  Without a doubt, this will be one of the "most watched" cases this year.

For those that do not have immediate recall of the exact text of the Second Amendment, the text reads,"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The Heller case specifically dealt with the question, "Does the Second Amendment 'right to keep and bear arms' only apply to the 'militia' (or National Guard)."   In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia went through the history of the "Right to Defend One's Self."  In summary, the majority opinion of the Court stated the Second Amendment did not only apply to the militia, but rather, the "militia" as it was understood at the time, meant "all" citizens who would be called to defend the state in time of war or extreme civil unrest.  It was also explained that in essence, the clause "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" in modern English (as opposed to 18th century English) meant "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."   The ruling in this case however, only applied to the Federal Government, as the District of Columbia falls under Federal jurisdiction. 

In 2010, the McDonald case dealt with the question of whether the Second Amendment applied to the states.  This case specifically looked at whether the Second Amendment applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.   The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito stated that indeed, the Second Amendment did apply to the states.  In both Heller and McDonald the court stated that a state may not impose a ban on firearms, but that provisions such as banning felons from possessing firearms where Constitutional.

Since the Heller and McDonald rulings, there have been no other significant Second Amendment cases heard by the Supreme Court.   Further, the Heller and McDonald opinions have left a great deal of confusion and conflict on how Second Amendment challenges should be ruled on, leaving a patchwork of conflicting rulings from the Courts of Appeal.   Additionally, one phrase, written by Justice Scalia in the Heller majority opinion has created confusion on the scope of the Second Amendment. 

In his majority opinion in Heller, Justice Scalia wrote:
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute

Unfortunately, many in the media, the public and some of the lower courts have viewed the statement that "the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" means that the Second Amendment only applies to the home.  However, this is not what Justice Scalia stated.  He stated that the need was "most acute" in the home.  Justice Scalia was merely pointing out that because a person spends more time in the home, than in any other place, and because the home is the place where one expects to feel most relaxed and most secure, the need to be able to defend one's self in one's home is highest.  This, however, does not mean that the need to defend one's self in public, does not exist or is not important.  The "misreading" and "misinterpretation" of the Heller and McDonald cases, as well as the Court's failure to hear any substantive Second Amendment cases since 2010, caused Justice Thomas to write a scathing dissent on the Court's decision not to hear a challenge to a gun control law in California.  Justice Scalia went so far as to call the Second Amendment a Constitutional Orphan.

This brings us to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City  The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association has asked the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to New York City regulations that prohibit an individual, with a license to have a pistol in their home, from taking that firearm outside of the home.   The NYC regulations required that an individual with a home pistol license ONLY use one of SEVEN shooting ranges inside the limits of the City of New York.  The law further prohibited an individual from transporting a firearm licensed to a home in New York City from transporting that firearm to a second home (a vacation home on Long Island for example).  Finally the regulations even prohibited the individual from taking that firearm to a Gun Smith within the City of New York, without written permission from the Chief of Police.

On appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the appeals court, using "intermediate scrutiny" ruled in favor of New York City, stating that the Governmental need to reduce crime and ensure public safety outweighed the individual's Second Amendment right.   There was no explanation on how a firearm that was locked in a gun case, and locked in an individual's vehicle truck away from any passengers and separated from any ammunition (requirements to transport a firearm from point A to point B by New York law) would increase crime or decrease public safety.  Further the Appeals Court stated that since the individual would be transporting the firearm outside the home, there was no "acute" need for self defense.

The NYSRPA appealed to the Supreme Court.   After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and well after all written arguments were presented to the Court, New York City and the State of New York both decided that the last thing they wanted was for the Supreme Court to hear this case.   This opinion was expressed by other states with strict gun control laws.   New York and other states are all in fear that the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to BEAR arms as well.

In an effort to keep the Supreme Court from hearing this case, in July 2019, NYC and New York both changed regulations to allow some transport of firearms outside the city limits of NYC.   The City of New York then sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking the Court to dismiss the case as moot.  The fear of a "pro-gun" ruling by the Supreme Court is so great, that Sen. Whitehouse (D- RI) filed a brief more or less "threatening" the Court if they did not dismiss this case as moot.   The Court did reject the NYC letter asking the case be dismissed, but did order both parties to be prepared to argue why this case is not moot, when the Court hears the case this morning.

There are three possible outcomes for this case.   The first possible outcome is that the case will be found to be "moot."   It is likely that Counsel for both sides will try to convince Chief Justice Roberts in particular on the issue of mootness.   The belief on both sides of the argument is that each has four Justices in their corners so to speak (although predicting what the Court will do is dangerous).  Each side believes that Chief Justice Roberts will be the deciding vote.  The other two outcomes are the apparent ones. If the Court decides the case is not moot, then the Court will have to decide what the Constitution means by "bear arms."   This will likely end up being a 5-4 ruling, regardless of the direction the Court takes.

Currently, there are several dozen cases that have been put on hold pending the outcome of this case, and this case may end up having an impact for generations to come. 

(The transcript from the oral arguments that were held this morning will be available by close of business today, and the audio recordings of the arguments will be available at end of this week.)


Wednesday, November 20, 2019

Stop the Vaping Ban!!

So SMOKING POT is OK- but VAPING IS BAD?????  And now the AMA is calling for a BAN on vaping! This is the BIGGEST Crock of $4I+ I have EVER seen.   The UK equivalent  of the CDC (Public Health England) says VAPING is safe- 95% safer than smoking and they ENCOURAGE people to vape to quit smoking- AND IT IS WORKING!!!!   And Great Britain does NOT have the "vaping illness" that the US does -- HINT- ITS CAUSED BY BLACK MARKET THC & Vitamin E cut fluid!!!!

The fact is, research in the UK has said not only is vaping FAR safer than smoking, but it also has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of "second hand vaping issues."

This ANTI-VAPING CAMPAIGN MUST stop.   What has the CDC and the US Government learned since prohibition? NOTHING!    All that banning Vaping will do is drive more people to smoking and climate a safe way to STOP SMOKING.

We have LAWS that say marijuana (and its active component THC) is ILLEGAL.  We have SUPREME COURT that has said State Laws that legalize pot DO NOT supersede Federal Law and the 10th Amendment issues have been superseded by the Commerce Clause (see Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005))  And yet the FEDS CHOOSE not to enforce the law.  Instead we are hearing that VAPING must be outlawed.  


Contact your Representatives and Senators.  Tell them to STOP THE VAPING BAN!


Tuesday, September 3, 2019

HR 1186 - IT REALLY WONT "Keep America Safe Act"

The naming of bills and laws has always amazed me.   Congress always seems to come up with such inspiring names or catchy acronyms:  HIPAA, PATRIOT Act, and now the "Keep America Safe Act."

Of course, sometimes the names are rather misleading- or they pro-port to do something that they really will never do.  HR 1186- the "Keep America Safe Act" is a perfect example.  The fact is this bill should be amended to title it the "It Really Won't Keep America Safe Act."

This act is of course a knee-jerk reaction to recent shootings. Unfortunately, this act is gaining traction in the Senate, with some GOP Senators now saying they would support this measure.

What the "[It Really Won't] Keep America Safe Act" Actually Says (in short), after this bill is passed it will be illegal to possess, make, sell, etc any firearm magazine that holds more than ten rounds.  But it will NOT be illegal to posses a large magazine (eleven rounds or greater) if that magazine was produced prior to the date of the bill passage.   Further, this law bans magazines larger than 10 rounds for .22 Rifles - unless that magazine is a tubular magazine affixed to the rifle (say goodbye to any large magazines for your Ruger 10-22 in the future if this were to pass).   The penalty for illegal possession will be 3-10 YEARS in prison (possibly longer depending on circumstances).

So why do I contend that this WILL NOT "Keep America Safe?"  Who will obey this law? As usual, people who are already predisposed to obey the law.   Further it will potentially make inadvertent criminals of some, as the law states its not illegal to posses a pre-passage magazine with more than ten rounds, it does not say it is legal to transfer a pre-passage magazine.   For example, a relative leaves an individual a World War II era M1-Carbine to an adult relative in their will.  A strict reading of this law would make that transfer illegal if it included the magazine.

Another reason this bill will not "Keep America Safe" is that it will limit law abiding citizens in their ability to defend themselves against criminal intruders.    According to the FBI Extended Homicide Data, more than 400 times a year, a private citizen is forced to kill another human in self defense.  This does NOT include the number of times a private citizen is forced to fire in self defense but misses or only wounds a perpetrator.    As a law abiding citizen and gun owner, if I were ever forced into that situation, where I had to defend my home, my property and my loved ones, I would want to have MORE firepower than the "bad guy"- not be limited by the number of times I could fire in self-defense while the bad guy, who obviously is not going to obey the law (he just broke into my home, or threatened a family member with deadly force) uses a high capacity magazine and can wait until I have to thumb a magazine release, insert a new magazine, and close the action. There have been numerous situations over the years where a home owner has fired more than ten rounds to stop an assailant.   Adrenaline is high.  Hands are shaking.   Personally, I have received training on how to do this quickly with a speed loader (yes, with a revolver) or magazine, but that does not guarantee perfection in an extremely tense situation.   Not everyone has this training. 

With all the other things Congress COULD do to protect citizens (improving mental health care and services for one), this appears to be the route they want to take; a law that will make people "feel good" but actually does nothing- just like the 1994 Assault Weapons and High Capacity Magazine Ban.

Then again, if Congress says no one gets more than ten rounds before they must reload, the bad guys will respect that right?


The RACISM of Gun Control

The Presidential Election year is fast approaching, and to be sure, Gun Control will be an issue.   At some point next year, the GOP will likely adopt a plank in the party platform will be adopted in support of the 2nd Amendment, Protecting Heller and McDonald, SHALL issue laws- basically a plank against arbitrary gun control.  The GOP took the position back in the late 1860's that the 2nd Amendment applied to ALL Americans and States could not interfere.  Why then? Because the GOP wanted freed slaves to be able to protect themselves and stay free.   

Next year at the Democratic Party Convention, the DNC will likely propose a plank supporting Gun Control.  Southern Democrats started passing gun control laws in the 1860's and 1870's to strip former slaves of their 2nd Amendment Rights- along with a host of others.   

Gun Control Laws, beginning with those passed by Democrat controlled state governments at the end of the Civil War, Gun Control, have an origin in Racist Ideology.    
"A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge [ammo] box." -Frederick Douglass, 1867

It was because of the "black codes" passed after the Civil War that the 14th amendment  was proposed and then passed.   One of the stated goals of passage was to protect the right of African-Americans to possess and carry firearms for their own defense.  
'The black man has never had the right either to keep or bear arms,' and that, until he does, 'the work of the Abolitionists was not finished.'"  -Frederick Douglass, May 10, 1965 

Now, according to  a Pew Research Study, 54% of African-Americans view gun ownership in a positive light.  It is also being viewed as a matter of Civil Rights 

Gun Control advocates continue to encourage MAY ISSUE Concealed Carry Laws. Under MAY ISSUE, if an individual meets all the criteria to qualify for a Concealed Carry Permit, authorities "may issue" the permit if they so choose.  Currently,  nine states are either completely or partially "MAY ISSUE" states. Six completely "may issue." They are: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts. New Jersey and New York.  The remaining three states- Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island- have laws that are partially "may issue."

"May Issue" laws are flawed.   "May Issue" laws allow the opinion of the issuer to enter into the decision of whether to issue a permit.  Racism has played a factor in this decision.  Dr Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama in 1956 after his home had been bombed.  At the time, Alabama was a "may issue" state.  Although Dr. King was otherwise qualified, his concealed carry permit application was denied.  The best argument for SHALL ISSUE laws is it helps remove human  factors- such as racism - from the process.   If you are old enough and meet the requirements, you cannot be denied- as Dr. King was.

It is well worth reading Associate Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) on the Second Amendment, its history, and racism.   The Washington Post called it "...a scorcher of an opinion that reads like a mix of black history lesson and Black Panther Party manifesto..."  

(I am not going to cite MTV as a source here, but I am going to provide a link to an interesting article on MTV on the Racist origins of Gun Control).

The bottom line is Gun Control has origins in post-Civil War racism.  But, the Constitution, and our laws as American must and should be absolutely color-blind or there will never be real Freedom and Justice for all.

Reference Links:


Monday, August 12, 2019

Guns and Autos: Explaining the Problems of Many Gun Control Proposals

There are "constants" in the Universe.

Gravity is a "constant" in the universe.  The speed of light is a "constant" in the universe.  Unfortunately, "Knee-Jerk Reaction" gun control proposals and arguments after a mass shooting event are also "constants."  Within the scope of "Knee-Jerk Reaction" gun control proposals,  there are other "constants" as well.  One of those "constants" is that eventually someone will argue, "we make people get licenses and insurance for cars, why shouldn't we make people get a license and liability insurance before they can own a gun?"

The fact is, the vast majority of those that push for increased gun control have no idea of what current laws already exist, the extent of those laws or how they apply to gun ownership, or what the process is for purchasing a firearm. A number of those that are "pro-gun control" believe that anyone can go to a store and buy "fully automatic" firearms over the counter, or that one can go to a website, pick out a gun, type in their credit card number, and the gun will just be mailed to them. Many gun control advocates give the impression that a gun show is a "free-for-all," full of individuals who could never pass a federal firearm background check and intend to go on a shooting rampage the moment they leave the show.  If one listens to some gun-control advocates, gun shows exist solely to provide a location to avoid back-ground checks for firearm purchases.

Sadly, there are a great many people who listen to these "pro-gun control" advocates, despite the fact that many of those who are "pro-gun control" have limited knowledge of guns at best.  The public hear phrases like "background checks," "keep military weapons out of civilian hands," or "assault weapons ban" and cannot help but think the proposals are reasonable.

Perhaps the best way to show why some of these proposals are unreasonable is to compare guns and automobiles.  Let's take current gun control proposals and laws and see what they look like when applied to automobile ownership, operation and licensing:

1. We must ban all Jeeps and Hummers- they have a military appearance and we can't have that.  A military appearance makes things more dangerous.  Suburbans and other quasi-military looking vehicles also should be restricted.

Firearms reality: Many so called "assault weapons bans" restrict the sale and ownership of a firearm simply because of the "looks" of the gun. These laws may ban one firearm but say another is a "common hunting firearm" and therefore permissible to own in the view of some gun control advocates. This despite the fact that both of the firearms use the same caliber of round (bullets) and both are semi-automatic.  It should not be a valid reason to ban a firearm because it "looks scary"

2. All vehicles must be limited to a tank quantity of less than 10 gallons.  That way you can't drive as much.   You must stop to reload (the tank) more often.

Firearms reality: A constant proposal from gun control advocates is limiting the size of firearm magazines (incorrectly often referred to as "clips").  If I am in a situation where I have to use my firearm to defend my life or the life of another, I don't want to run out of ammunition (personally, I am a decent shot, so I might not run out of ammo, but there may be others who don't shoot as well).  Another reason why a person may wish to have a high-capacity magazine may be that a person might not want to spend all their time at the shooting range re-loading.  The "gun-control advocate" view is that no one needs more than eight to ten rounds of ammo.  That view is false.

3.  We must place an breathalyzer interlock on ALL cars and trucks- regardless of whether the person had ever had a DUI- they might try sometime even if they NEVER drink.

Firearms reality: I have lost track of the number of times when a certain firearm is used in a crime, and "gun-control advocates" immediately want to ban everyone from having that type firearm.  The criminal actions of a single individual should never dictate the rights of millions of law abiding citizens. 

4. All states should adopt "MAY ISSUE" laws instead of SHALL ISSUE.  It should be up to the whim of local sheriffs to decide who gets to drive and who doesn't.  With the Shall Issue law if a person passes the Drivers License test and has a clean record, the state MUST issue a drivers license.  Obviously this is bad.

Firearms reality: There are nine states with either strict or partial "may issue" concealed weapons permit laws.   The most egregious jurisdiction in the eyes of many is San Diego County.  It is nearly impossible to obtain a concealed weapons permit in San Diego County. The San Diego County Sheriff's website states that to obtain a Concealed Carry Weapon Permit you must demonstrate "a set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply writing "self defense" or "personal protection" on an application does not provide the requisite proof of good cause." Other jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia have been told by the United States Court of Appeals that a nearly identical "good cause" requirement is unconstitutional.   This issue has yet to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.  Rulings from the Court of Appeals only apply to those places where the individual court has jurisdiction.

5. One state should not be required to accept another's Drivers License.  Places like New York, California, DC etc should be allowed to ban drivers from other states from driving in their states.  To hell with the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that interstate travel is a right.

Firearms reality: Although most states accept the Concealed Carry permit of other states, places like California do not.  In fact, because California does not allow for the open carry of firearms, and in California only a California resident may obtain a Concealed Carry permit, it is in effect illegal for a non-resident to carry a firearm.  The general belief of the public is the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.  The United States Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue.  Therefore, for now at least, in California, the Second Amendment does not apply to those who are from any of the other 49 states.

6.  All automobile purchasers should be required to have a background check-- UNIVERSAL Background Checks- even in the case of someone being willed grandfather's old car.  The person buying could have a background of speeding or DUI

Firearms reality: Every firearms sale through a firearms dealer requires a background check by Federal law.  The information from the purchaser is run through NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).  This also includes sales from dealers at gun shows, as well as so called internet sales.  The fact is "internet sales" don't really happen.  A person may go to a website, such as to purchase a firearm, but the firearm does not go to the purchaser directly.  The firearm gets transferred to a licensed firearm dealer.  That dealer then performs all required background checks as will as any required state checks.  This also is a check against violation of state law, in that if the firearm is illegal in the state of purchase, the transfer to the purchaser does not take place.  The gun control lobby seeks to expand background checks past this point.  Under the "pro-gun control" proposals, if I were to purchase a firearm as a gift for my spouse (I have done this on several occasions, and the "gift" is greatly appreciated) not only would a background check be performed on me as the purchaser, but then my spouse would have to go to the store and have a background check run as well.  This is an inconvenience with little gain.  Background checks do not stop crime.  Criminals generally do not go to gun stores to purchase a gun before committing a crime- they get those guns on the street, or by theft.

7.  Ban the private sale or transfer of autos, and all internet sales. The person buying the car MUST have a background check.   This includes all "car shows" - OK so even though all car dealers at car shows may be licensed  dealers AND they would already do a background check, who cares.   You can buy parts at shows and that means a bad driver "could" get a hold of a car at a show.

Firearms reality: There are proposals to ban the private "transfer" of firearms.  This would include firearms transferred by Will and Testament.   As already discussed, these type checks do nothing to stop crime.  These checks are about tracking who owns what guns.

8.  Require a background check for the purchase of gasoline at the state level.  Allow for an "instant check" for those who have bought a car in the last year (will help speed up gasoline sales). However, individuals who have not purchased a car in the last year will have to wait until they are "in the system" before a gasoline purchase can be approved.  Additionally, out of state visitors will be unable to purchase gasoline.

Firearms reality: California has recently enacted a background check requirement ammunition purchases.  The only persons approved immediately are those who have purchased a firearm since the state started tracking purchases.  The state wants to be sure you only buy ammunition for a gun you personally own.  If you haven't made a recent firearm purchase, you must wait for processing to be completed on your application before the state will approve your ammunition purchase.  If you are not a California resident, you would not have a firearm purchase registered with the California system and therefore you would not be able to purchase ammunition.  For those who believe that people from outside of California would have no need to purchase ammunition, there are people who travel to California to compete in shooting competitions.  There are also those who travel to California to hunt.  Regardless of the reason, these restrictions are unreasonable and have been challenged in Federal Court.  To date, this law has yet to be reviewed by any court higher than Federal District Court- however, the Federal Judge has stated he believes these laws will be found to be unconstitutional, but there currently is no injunction in place, and the ammo purchase laws are in effect.

9.  We must limit AAA.   The problem is they are to powerful.  EVERY TIME a multiple vehicle accident occurs it is because of their members and the lobbying power they have.  If it wasn't for their political influence and stranglehold on Congress and State Legislative bodies there would not be such a problem.

Firearms reality: The media and politicians love to paint the National Rifle Association an enemy of civilization.  They paint the NRA as an organization that actively tries to recruit people to carry out mass murders.   The fact is the NRA has been around since the 1870's.  And while the NRA does lobby on behalf of gun owners for "reasonable" laws, the primary task the NRA performs is education.   The NRA provides safety training. The NRA provides training for Range Officers and provides standards for firing range safety.  Millions have been taught firearms safety through courses taught by the NRA, or using NRA approved curriculum.

10. A 5 day waiting period on all car sales.  

Firearms reality: As much as some politicians like to talk about how anyone can walk into a gun store, put down a credit card and walk out with a gun, every gun sale from a firearms dealer does require a background check that may end up requiring a waiting period.  Unless a firearms dealer is told to "proceed" with a firearms sale, and assuming there has not been a "denied" issued, a firearm sale is subject to a hold.

These are just a few examples of what gun control advocates call "reasonable" proposals.  However, the public would be furious if, for example, a drunk driver hit a school bus, killing several students, and then politicians started shouting that we need a law to require Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks on every single vehicle sold.  Rightfully the general public would be outraged and stress that just because one person got drunk and used their car to cause a tragedy, the rest of the driving population should not be punished.  However, the same general public is not concerned when politicians discuss banning a firearm from millions, because one "nut" decided to use that weapon in a murder.  The People would be outraged over restrictions to the purchases of automobiles, yet driving is not a Constitutional Right; keeping and bearing a firearm is.

**** To be sure you see the latest discussion and commentary, please follow Carden Chronicles on Facebook (, Twitter (@CardenBlog) or subscribe to email or RSS Feed updates at The Carden Chronicles website.  ****

The Carden Chronicles is against the #GunControlNow Campaign


Saturday, August 10, 2019

CLASSIFIED: The Jeffrey Epstein Conspiracy - Or Not (Satire Saturday)

Written by: [Name Redacted]

BREAKING NEWS - Jeffrey Epstein has been found dead in his jail cell. This was an “apparent suicide.”

CEO’s, Politicians, Royalty, Former US Presidents and Members of Congress, who had spent time at Epstein’s  “Rest and Relaxation” Sex Island all let out a huge sigh of relief.

Bad conspiracy theories are already spreading at the speed of light. These bad theories are part of a disinformation campaign-maybe like the article you are reading now - to provide a cover story for both the real conspiracy and the fake conspiracies.

Since Facebook is as secure as Hillary Clinton's email server a secure platform, and I know and absolutely trust every single person who reads this, I believe it appropriate to document the proof of the conspiracy. I will ask everyone who reads this to keep this highly sensitive information absolutely private. PLEASE make sure you share ONLY the disinformation. We cannot have people believing the truth because it will cause too much confusion.

How do we know there is a Conspiracy here?  Because every single piece of evidence says there is no conspiracy.

All the powerful people implicated were rich and therefore they could afford to send in an elite Hashashin Assassin to make it LOOK like a suicide. The proof here is that not a single guard at the detention facility saw the assassin. The assassin was NOT seen on camera, and NO ONE saw an assassin enter the cell, kill Epstein, create the “suicide” evidence with a fake body, and smuggle the REAL Epstein’s body out of the facility.

Only an extremely well funded and trained assassin could pull that off - and the only the mega-wealthy can afford that level of skill and efficiency. This also means the Government was involved. The mega-wealthy after all are the TRUE government - most politicians are really just “puppets” that follow the orders of the mega-wealthy.

We also know the Government was involved because of the aircraft that was used in this conspiracy. Not a SINGLED frame of all the security footage shows a highly classified US Special Operations Silent Supersonic VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) aircraft - the SR-71/2 bringing in the Hashashin. Not a single video frame shows the Hashashin leaving the area in the aircraft.  Further evidence that the SR-71/2 was used comes from the fact that no one reported hearing a "sonic boom" as the aircraft arrived and departed.   If any other aircraft had been used, the "sonic boom"  would have been heard.  Because no "sonic boom" was reported, we know that only the Special Operations Silent Supersonic VTOL Aircraft could have been used.

 Israeli Air Force Photo that Does Not Show the SR-71/2
The fact that the SR-71/2 was used, shows just how high this conspiracy goes.  The Department of Defense has gone to extreme measures to cover up and deny the existence of this aircraft.  Not only does the Department of Defense refuse to list the SR-71/2 in any documentation, they have denied the aircraft was even thought of by the late, Kelly Johnson.  The DOD also denies this aircraft was developed in cooperation with the Israeli Air Force. The Israeli Defense Forces also deny any knowledge of, or involvement in the SR-71/2.  Significantly, not a single picture of the aircraft flying over Masada in Israel appears anywhere in Israeli Air Force files. The photo shown in this article shows other US/Israeli Aircraft flying over Masada, but not the SR-71/2; proving the "official" Israeli government stance -"Israel knows nothing of this aircraft"

Proof of how secret even the TESTING of this was, comes from the fact that there is not even ONE photo of the SR-71/2 undergoing flight test at neither Area-51 nor at Edwards Air Force Base.  The existence SR-71/2 is so highly classified, it has also been kept from Congress.   Not a single reference of this remarkable aircraft appears in any Federal Budget.   Because the SR-71/2 does not show up in ANY government document, or budget; and Department of Defense officials completely deny the existence of the aircraft; we know just how secret the SR-71/2 program is. (Note: The DOD website has no reference for the SR-71/2.  This URL ( for the SR-71/2 opens to an OFFICIAL Department of Defense web-page that says 'We're sorry, this mission can't be completed! Let's see if we can help you find what you're looking for at, the official source for DOD news, information and resources"- proving that the DOD says this plane does not exist.)

Truly secret conspiracies leave behind no evidence.  Evidence of a conspiracy is proof that the alleged "conspiracy" was poorly executed.  Looking at the total lack of evidence in the Epstein "Suicide," we can clearly see how brilliantly this conspiracy was executed.  In fact, we can conclude that the media and a vast majority of the people on this planet, will believe that Jeffery Epstein was found dead in his jail cell of an "apparent suicide."

Always remember, if you are presented with actual "evidence" of an alleged major conspiracy or cover-up, you should not believe what you are being told.  After all, a perfectly executed conspiracy or cover-up leaves behind no evidence.