Tag: NRA

Americans Still Support Guns and the NRA: Firearms should be as common to wear as blue jeans

Yes it is good news to those of right mind, something the slack-jawed losers, the liberal malcontents, the communist gun-grabbers don’t want you to know dear reader, that a Gallup poll conducted on October 7th through the 11th confirmed Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA. Even better 52 percent of the respondents polled—which 56% considered themselves political moderates—opposed stricter gun laws. This is quite contrary to the type of rhetoric that carpet munching liberals—such as Hillary Clinton have been advocating when she said in May of 2015, We’re way out of balance, I think we’ve got to reign in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.” I say “carpet muncher” not to be mean, but as she stands against the NRA in every way possible, she is quite an animated advocate of gay and lesbian rights and will go out of her way to support “transgender rights” as if those types of people were common place. They may be in her neck of the woods, but not in mine. I know a lot more people who carry guns and use them as a way of life than I do gay people. So she obviously runs with a different crowd than I do and if those people happen to be women while her husband is running around in the Caribbean with his wealthy friends having sex with underaged girls, what’s a girl supposed to do? Chew on some well-sculpted carpet and get mad at the NRA because they tend to oppose people like her legislatively, and morally. Well, in spite of her type or radicalism, the public hasn’t turned on the NRA.

I was eating at a restaurant the other day with my wife—we have known the owners for years, and they have a son who spends a lot of time at the place while they conduct their business. He’s often over in the corner playing video games on his laptop—and over the years I’ve watched him grow up. As I ate my food he was playing a first person shooter of some kind and he was really into the action. He’s a nice kid, gets good grades and is likely going to grow up to become a phenomenal young man because he has parents who really love him—and we all know how much that makes a difference in the life of a young person. But he was shooting hundreds of targets on his laptop with a wide range of guns, and he was having a great time doing it.

Video games, movies, and guns go together like butter on popcorn. Young Millennials love guns because of video games—which have become their primary exposure. If people like Hillary Clinton were successful at getting Hollywood to stop putting guns in their movies, or programmers to take guns out of their games—sales would plummet. So Hollywood liberals donate millions of dollars to Democrats—sliding money into the purse of Clinton like a guilty man in a gentlemen’s club slides a twenty into the G-string of a 20-year-old girl because she showed him her snatch. They want to shut that politician up to their industry so they can make money—with guns. Guns satisfy a primary need that human beings have of being in control of their own destiny, so they are still popular in movies, and very popular in video games—and that’s not going away.

While public schools have listened to idiots like Hillary Clinton and tried to keep kids from playing “gunfight” at recess, kids have tuned out of school and tuned in to their Playstations at home for some wonderful online gunfights that are a lot cooler than what I had when I was a kid using sticks for guns. These days virtual gunfights are so much more fun, and most kids play them. Those kids may pay lip service to the liberals at their schools without making the connection now, but in the not so distant future, they will grow up, have families, and vote—and they’ll be gun fans—likely more audaciously than I am now, because they get to play with them in the mythic environments on a daily basis.

So I’m not sure who Hillary Clinton and her gun-grabbing Democrats think are going to listen to their desires for more gun control. When those young people realize that they can buy guns of their own someday and get a concealed carry permit, they’ll do it, and they’ll love it. But here’s where the trouble starts–because people like Hillary Clinton have also spent much of their lives destroying the family structure of traditional Americans. Back in my day I shot guns with my dad, and grandparents—and I learned to respect them within my family environment. Kids today who have access to more virtual guns than I even knew existed when I was their age–don’t have intact family structures. Too often kids deal with two and three marriages between their parents and there are step brothers and sisters and all kinds of messed up conditions that have been caused by the government tampering with the lives and thoughts of the masses with progressive experiments. Kids are still playing “gunfight” just as I did, and kids will always want to play in that fashion because there is a human need for it. But unlike in my time, or those who came before me, modern kids don’t have the family structure to learn to respect firearms. That means that Hillary Clinton types of people have screwed up in two ways, they had tamped with the American family and contributed to its demise and they failed to address the human need for firearms in our education systems by denying that it exists. Those two things have proven to be detrimental to our modern age.

The National Rifle Association is dedicated to not only preserving the Second Amendment, but in educating gun owners about the proper handling of them. They are a truly wonderful organization that seeks to put American value in line with firearm ownership in a way that really public schools should be doing on their own. Rather than publicly funded schools advocating gay rights, and transgender roles to make Hillary Clinton fans happy, they should use the confiscated money they receive in taxes to educate children into the kind of society they really want—not the one that they seek to impose on people. Kids should be taught about firearms in public school and even learn to care for them—because guns are part of American culture—more so than most anything else that could be taught in school.

There would be nothing wrong with kids learning to target shoot during gym class, or learning how to reload ammunition in shop class. Proper history should be taught about the importance of the American frontiersman into changing the way human beings viewed themselves and a thorough study of the firearms of the early 18th century deserves some attention. For instance, Simon Kenton used to be able to reload is musket while on the run as the Shawnee were constantly harassing him for his land claims made along the Ohio River Valley. It took a lot of skill to do what he did and kids ought to be playing games featuring him at recess—instead of just naming a county in Northern Kentucky after him and calling it respect. If schools taught that kind of thing—I just might support a school levy. But why should people tax themselves into oblivion just so young people can learn a bunch of progressive crap that is useless to them. Because we know what happens to people who follow progressive philosophy—they end up miserable and dependent on government and end up spiteful and broken as grownups. An education system that teaches that kind of garbage should be rejected.

The NRA is an important organization in American culture. My membership card is one of the things I carry around with me every day that means a lot to me. I keep it right next to my Second Call Defense card in my wallet and it gives me hope that America isn’t lost each time I see it. In spite of all the progressive attacks against the NRA, Americans still support it, and I’m inclined to feel that the support will grow in time because of young people growing up after playing so many video games and wanting to know the truth about firearms as they re-educate themselves after a generation of slander. Hillary Clinton’s view of the world is a dying carcass. I can see a need for American women to wear their guns about them the way that they do earrings and high heels—to accentuate their natural beauty and roles within society.   I can see a real need for guns to become as much a part of people’s lives as blue jeans and t-shirts—because in America, guns are what make us great—and free. And it is the NRA that stands for that freedom as the gun-grabbers from the rest of the world try to work their malice to no avail as the people within the United States still support their firearms as well they should—against a tide of opinion that has not been successful in removing them.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

 

Gun Rights “Shall Not Be Infringed”: Philosophy trumps legality–get to know Senate Bill 199 and Senate Bill 180

I get really tired of all this talk about gun control. On Saturday Night Live shown on October 10, 2015 the obvious attack against guns was incredibly obvious. They did several skits attacking guns showing how the progressive New York culture sees the rest of America. Well, just for clarity not to the gun owners who read this site each day, but those progressive types who are way too politically left-winged, the Second Amendment is not up for debate. It is not up for negotiation. And there is no interpretation of the words “shall not be infringed,” that opens the door for more rules, confiscation, or government involvement. As lawyers do try to discuss the meaning of words which can take on different meanings as times change the Bill of Rights is an extension of American philosophy for which legal terms evolved. The intent of the Constitution therefore does not fall under the proper interpretation of legal minds, but philosophy. And the essence of that philosophy is that governments cannot be trusted—which is grossly evident in our modern news cycles. Here is how the terminology has been misinterpreted by legal minds giving the illusion that the Second Amendment can be modified to suit some progressive diatribe—such as those shown on left leaning news outlets and entertainment venues.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.” Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment’s intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this “individual right theory,” the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language “a well-regulated Militia” to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state’s right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory “the collective rights theory.” A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller. 307 U.S. 174. The Court adopted a collective rights approach in this case, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun that had moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated milita . . . .” The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.

Thus, the Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine. However, the Court did not have a majority on which clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. While Justice Alito and his supporters looked to the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas in his concurrence stated that the Privileges and Immunities Clause should justify incorporation.

However, several questions still remain unanswered, such as whether regulations less stringent than the D.C. statute implicate the Second Amendment, whether lower courts will apply their dicta regarding permissible restrictions, and what level of scrutiny the courts should apply when analyzing a statute that infringes on the Second Amendment.

Recent case-law since Heller suggests that courts are willing to, for example, uphold

  • regulations which ban weapons on government property. US v Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding defendant’s conviction for bringing a handgun onto post office property);
  • regulations which ban the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, convicted felon.  US v Rene, 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that the Juvenile Delinquency Act ban of juvenile possession of handguns did not violate the Second Amendment);
  •  regulations which require a permit to carry concealed weapon. Kachalsky v County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2nd Cir. 2012) (holding that a New York law preventing individuals from obtaining a license to possess a concealed firearm in public for general purposes unless the individual showed proper cause did not violate the Second Amendment.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

That’s just a bit of history on how the Second Amendment has been knocked back and forth over the years. Yet the trend in spite of New Yorkers like those found on Saturday Night Live around the rest of the country is for gun laws to become less stringent not more so. For instance in my home state of Ohio there are two pro-gun bills being introduced for discussion which are very important.   The Ohio Senate Civil Justice Committee had a hearing Wednesday, October 7, at 2:30 p.m. in the Finance Hearing Room to discuss two pro-gun bills.

Senate Bill 180, sponsored by Senator Joe Uecker (R-14), would allow an employee to store a firearm in their locked vehicle without fear of employer retribution.  Throughout the country, many employers have adopted “No Firearms” policies that extend beyond the physical workplace to include employee parking lots – areas often accessible to the general public and not secure.  In order to comply with these policies, many employees must choose between protecting themselves during their commutes and being subject to termination by their employer.

The fundamental right to self-defense should not stop simply because you park your car in a publicly accessible parking lot owned by your employer.  When companies invite employees to park on their property, they should not be allowed to dictate employees’ constitutional rights inside one’s own vehicle.

Senate Bill 199, also sponsored by Senator Uecker (R-14) and Senator Randy Gardner (R-2), would allow an active duty member of the military to carry a concealed firearm without obtaining a concealed carry license if the active duty member is carrying a valid military identification and a certificate indicating a small arms qualification.

If your company has such a misguided policy that impedes your inherent right to self-defense, please contact NRA-ILA’s State and Local Division at state&local@nrahq.org and share this information.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20151006/ohio-nra-backed-bills-up-in-committee-this-week

And that’s where I stand, there needs to be a lot more guns out there, not less, and we need to be able to carry them in more places more often. The trend is clear and the necessity for more guns is obvious. Guns are not just instruments of death the way left leaning politics frames them—they are part of the philosophic American experience. They transcend legal interpretation as philosophy trumps legality because it is in thought that all law emerges. So to undo some of the laws misinterpreted by sissy-driven legal minds over the years, the Ohio Senate Civil Justice Committee is working to walk back the intrusions that gun owners have been conceding—illegally due to improper legal negotiations from the anti-gun lobby over previous decades. The activism displayed on Saturday Night Live and other anti-gun venues made a false assumption—that gun rights “shall not be infringed,” were up to debate. They aren’t under any circumstance. End of story. It’s not complicated. Guns=philosophy which trumps legality.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Communist Dreams: Shutting down the government over guns

When the anti-gun forces point to the far-right as their primary opposition to the national banning of weapons their perspective is relative to their current political positions which are essentially the type of communists that founded the U.S.S.R. They call themselves progressives now instead of communists but their message and strategy are extremely similar to the turn-of-the-century communists that seized Europe prior to World War II. In America to avoid the communist stigma they changed their name to progressive and are seeking to implement the type of centralized control that is common under communist regimes. So let’s get that little disclaimer out-of-the-way before proceeding.   When they speak with hatred at the “far right” they mean capitalists, traditionalists and religious conservatives—essentially the majority of the American nation. They speak the name with a bit of scorn hoping to push people down into shells of security from speaking publicly and affirming that the progressives are in fact the majority hoping to transform the nation into the semblance of a communist state. To accomplish that task the must remove guns from American culture.

In delivering the eulogy Saturday for an aide killed by a stray bullet on a New York City street, Gov. Andrew Cuomo stepped up his calls for national gun control toward the progressive aim of accomplishing that task by saying:

“If the far right is willing to shut down the government because they don’t get a tax cut for the rich, then our people should have the same resolve and threaten to shut down the government if they don’t get a real gun control law to stop killing of their innocents,” he said.

http://www.guns.com/2015/09/28/cuomo-calls-for-government-shut-down-over-gun-control/

You see how this works dear reader. If Republicans were not trying to do the responsible thing and shut down the government because of extremely irresponsible spending at the federal level, by both sides of the House and Senate, then progressives would be shutting it down for the same radicalism only from the political left’s position. Aside from the threat of shutting down the portions of the government because the bill for it is simply too high amok with inefficiencies, the services rendered are constantly and forever going to be used to extort action from one side or the other. So it would be best to get used to not wanting those services so that they can’t be used to force action upon the voting public. Government shut downs are a responsible action. It is irresponsible of the government to use National Parks as extortion pieces to hurt travelers from visiting national treasures and refusing local law enforcement help to keep those parks open, as they did during the last government shut down—of which the Republicans were supposedly blamed, but still managed to take control of the House and Senate. The American public supported Republican efforts in spite of what progressives said of the action in the media.

And now here is Andrew Cuomo attempting to use tragedy to advance a progressive agenda obsessed with gun control—and thereby control over the public at large as a centralized authority. The purpose of guns in America is to protect private property either from individual theft, or governments out of control if the terrible should ever take place and the courts fail completely—as they presently are near in status. There are occasionally tests by the government of their authority against people they consider radical gun-nuts, and gun fights do sometimes erupt—but the threat of violence currently keeps government at bay in all but the most extreme cases. To put things simply, guns are intended to keep activist progressives like Andrew Cuomo from spreading like a disease across the nation as an activist politician allowing government to seize private property for the purpose of extorting its use back to us—such as what happens when there is government shut downs. The National Parks are shut down to hurt the people who want to use them.   The federal government is essentially fighting for the right to purposely mismanage their assignments for the sole propose of maintaining control to advance progressive strategies which almost always involve over spending on federal budgets for causes that are anti-traditional in American value.

There are many of us on the “far right” who are looking around and wondering where our country went—and we don’t like it. Every day there is more legislation created by nut-cases like Andrew Cuomo for the purpose of advancing progressive strategies—and there is always money attached to them. For Cuomo and his kind, removing guns from society is the ultimate dream because they would no longer have to fear imposing their desires as a collective parasite upon the free people of America. They don’t think anything of using every tragedy from lives lost toward that objective because they don’t see value in individuals—but only if they can use them to build a collective sentiment toward mass disregard for a particular topic they are against—in this case guns.

These same tricksters will give a eulogy for a fallen victim on one afternoon then turn right around and defend the mass murder of millions of babies to abortion under the same breath. Their purpose is the spread of evil upon the earth as communists—their brethren from the past. And to continue that spread, they require the removal of guns from society so that there is no defense to protect that majority “far right” within America from the aggressive intentions of the typical progressive. The undercurrent of Andrew Cuomo is aggression through the disguise of peace. Progressives have no problem assaulting individuals so long as the can bring peace to the “greater good” as defined by them. Pacifists who surrender to the authority of the state, in the mind of the progressive, are the ways forward to a society’s desire for justice. But that definition is strictly one from the “far left.” The “far right” and the “far left” are a long way off. Andrew Cuomo is a long way away from someone like me in regard to political philosophy. One philosophy is built by the values of something like the Rocky Horror Picture Show, while mine might be built by years of John Wayne movies. The values are not compatible and it is not going to be possible to convince me to surrender my sanctity to the big government efforts of the Andrew Cuomo’s progressive mentality. Frustrations will abound. When the government shuts down due to political battles—I’m happy because I don’t want to pay for a lot of the offerings that the government provides. I don’t want them in charge of National Parks; I don’t want them in our schools, or in the typical government positions that are so common in the Beltway culture.   However, when those methods of politics fail and progressives still haven’t obtained their true objective, they must turn to force as the last resort. And when they do, they have to know and respect that the American guns of private ownership are there to meet their insurrection.   That is what the real issue behind Cuomo’s utterance. If Republicans didn’t threaten to shut down the government Democrats would try the same but for different reasons. That is a fact we all better get used to because government spending is too high and there is no way to slow it down now without pain. When politicians realize that they can’t live with that pain they will turn to force—and when they do, we better have plenty of guns in as many homes as possible. Because there is no other recourse when legislative justice breaks down due to political idealism—the only way to stay free is through gun ownership. It is the key to American civilization, and it needs to be less stringent instead of more so.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

 

Sticking to our Guns: Why you should join the NRA today

Over the weekend Dana Loesch stirred up controversy against the anti-gun progressive insurgents with a controversial new ad. It was quite effective prompting a Twitter war with radical anti-Second Amendment nut cases. And to her credit for every negative Tweet she received, she donated to the NRA in that person’s name and bought herself a box of ammunition. Her spunk should be greatly admired because besides the national debt, protecting the Second Amendment is the key strategic objective of all right thinking Americans in eroding away the terrible damage to our country that progressives have invoked presently.

If you are not a member of the NRA dear reader—what’s stopping you? In a town of lobbyists in Washington, the NRA is probably the only one that I support—and you have to. Without them, the Second Amendment would have been gone a long time ago by progressive, communist sympathizers who want to disarm society and put the government in charge of everything. What they don’t tell you about their gun grabbing tendencies is that their ultimate objective besides wealth redistribution is the eradication of private property. They do this through many progressive taxes—especially property taxes which are of course directly attached to public schools using our community’s children as hostages toward that objective. The gun in America through the Second Amendment is established to protect private property from enemies foreign and domestic and to uphold the Constitution with something besides a sling shot. Governments cannot be trusted, so the only way that progressives can implement their strategic objectives is by removing guns from society.

Guns are the key to a free society and the rest of the world would be a lot better off if they’d learn that very simple truth. Every single human being on planet earth, man, woman and child under parental supervision should possess a gun. There would be a lot less violence in the world if guns were more readily available than there are now. ISIS would have far less control over the Middle East, Islamic radicals in Africa would quickly loose their ability to terrorize innocent people—the communist governments in China, North Korea and elsewhere would lose their ability to abuse their own citizens and it would keep everyone honest. The only reason government doesn’t fly out of complete control in America is because of the ever-present knowledge that Americans are heavily armed and if government steps out of line, there will be trouble. So let’s get that straight before we discuss anything more. Any liberal who stands against the Second Amendment, any religious figure, and any body of government whatsoever is essentially attacking the American way of life and should be considered an insurgent against the Constitution. There is no debate with some “other side.” There is no touchy feely testimony about some terrible crime that occurs which should move America off defending the Second Amendment that justifies any such proposal. Bad things happen—nothing is perfect, but guns for the essence of individual freedom in the modern world are essential to our survival as a country. The rest of the world should copy the American way of life for their own betterment and the sooner they get that through their thick skulls, the better.

I have written many millions of words and conducted many speeches against public education. It is proven that government schools are liberal recruiting centers designed to undo private property through progressive taxation—and the whole system needs to be scrapped and redone. I have been very passionate about the issue. But there comes a time when you’ve made your point and the new strategy of the day needs to be addressed, because when it comes to liberalism they provide moving targets. I will always cover education issues, but I am going to shift my passion toward defending the Second Amendment with my considerable talents being put to full use. The reason is that it’s time now for those voices to add to what’s always been out there—which is the NRA. They have held down the fort for a long time, and its time they get some reinforcements because the progressive aspects of society are shifting their depleting resources into that direction for one last ridiculous push toward communism—their secret dreams which sing them to sleep at night often under the influence of drugs, and alcohol while listening to Miley Cyrus grind her crotch against a Teddy bear.   Liberals are parasitic animals and their attempts at attacking the Second Amendment need to be met for the intentions always established by the political left.

Of those new voices Dana Loesch is one of those great new talents who are helping the NRA change-up their marketing, which is essential to their continued success. I plan to add to those voices for the strategic implementation of that task with my own talents-which will of course be unique. I wouldn’t have it any other way. Because the time is now to expand the reach of the NRA’s base of support to the new markets of the Millennials and other middle-grounders that have been on the fence and only know about guns from television shows like CSI. Hollywood used to help spread the message of the NRA, but since that valley town of entertainment is nearly all liberalized these days, the marketing efforts that have been needed to keep the NRA expanding require more creative voices from unlikely sources—of which Dana is one.

Largely I have left many of the efforts toward defending the Second Amendment to the committed voices that have been out there. But over the last few years a few things have changed for me. First, I watched how much radicalism there was toward the two Discovery Channel shows, Son’s of Guns and American Gun, which I liked quite a lot. Both were pulled off the air and the main male leads in both were put under scrutiny legally. Some was justified; some was due to their cable reality shows featuring guns. Another change for me was that I had grand children. When I first did the YouTube video A Whip Trick to Save America some of the negative feedback toward me was to discredit my love of traditional western arts. They called me a “hillbilly” and “trailer trash” because I wore a cowboy hat in the video. Their assertion was that anything less than New York fashion would do—but to me that fashion was heavily progressive. I love old westerns and the values they exhibited. For myself I can live among progressives and not have my position challenged, but I worry about my grandchildren. They deserve to have the kind of America I grew up with and as I look around at the possible male role-models, I’m really the only one who has held firm to those traditions. So I’m not going to let that progressive America ruin my grandchildren. It’s not going to happen, let me put it that way. Because of the negative feedback I received about my whip work during the education reform debates, I took note and decided to make some adjustments for the present crusades.

Additionally, at the time a few years ago I had a publisher and some novels that I was planning to promote in the traditional way—through New York—which is heavily anti-gun. My thoughts were that since my character of Cliffhanger used bullwhips instead of guns that it might be more acceptable to them for mass market reasons. However, it wasn’t. Cliffhanger was far too traditional for publisher heads, so it didn’t really matter. My decision since has been to just do what I feel like doing and let the chips fall where they may. I have given up on the New York and Santa Monica creative class in working with them to produce content that America is looking for—they aren’t interested, even if they make a lot of money in the effort. They are far too radicalized politically for that collaboration so I’m at a point in my life where I no longer care. Those who support the Second Amendment in America need to be proud of their position. They shouldn’t feel like they have to hide their love of guns underground—which is what has been happening. Guns should be main stream, so anything I can do to help that I’m going to. It’s just that simple. I do not support the present direction of the country. So why avoid promoting gun ownership just to appease a few publishers? To hell with them.

I know that if I felt that pressure to not flamboyantly advance the gun culture in America, then it’s probably twenty times worse for the average person, so its time to change that—and to stop apologizing. It was only a few years ago when westerns were just about all that was on television which entertained the Greatest Generation after World War II with the first programming provided to the new television format. While I’m looking forward to Tarentino’s new western The Hateful Eight I don’t have a lot of faith that it will have a lot of the traditional values shown in westerns, but will just be a bloody gun fight typical of the new age director. The production company putting out the film is hopelessly progressive, so I can only look forward to it so much—but in the realm of westerns, that’s all there is. Star Wars is a modern western replacing spaceships for horses, but the values are very similar. Other than those influences however there’s not much for the modern gun lover to get their heels into. Progressives are waiting for the old timers who were raised on westerns to die off so the modern progressive kids brainwashed against guns in public school can become the dominate voting class—and when that happens even the NRA will be overwhelmed. So the good ol’ NRA needs a little help. I plan to help them and obviously Dana Loesch is doing her part. And if we all do, we can help shape the future in the proper way. A conservative future must have at the center of it a love for the gun, because everything else emerges from it—primarily economic freedom and personal liberty.

Rich Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

 

 

 

 

Cabela’s of West Chester: The story of a family enhancing conservation through capitalism

 One of my daughters and my wife had a shopping day recently that carried them into Bass Pro Shops at the Forest Park location. I haven’t been there recently because it is moving to the Streets of West Chester and I have been excited for that switch. The store will be impressive and will be a tremendous asset to the destination experience at Union Center, Ohio. The government of West Chester is running the way things should in every population dense area. George Lang and his crew of trustees are creating incentives for businesses to evolve around and lowering the barriers of entry into emerging markets—which is one of the reasons that Bass Pro is moving from Forest Park to West Chester. There are much more lucrative options at the Streets location than at Forest Park—clearly.

The interchange entering the new Bass Pro will be quite extraordinary. IKEA is already quite a draw and will share the Allen Road activity with Bass Pro which will provide shoppers with a truly epic experience. I’m not much of a shopper, but I do enjoy going to IKEA with my wife and eating the Swedish Meatballs they have there. It’s a cool setup and I like to eat in their cafeteria sitting by the windows watching all the cool new development springing up around the Union Center location. Development when it’s done correctly is like a work of art—and the Streets of West Chester, the area around Allen Road at IKEA, and on up Muhlhauser Road to the Jags restaurant is one of the most exciting areas in Cincinnati and I enjoy immensely watching the creation of all the new cool projects. Needless to say, I’m looking forward to the new Bass Pro location.

However my wife and daughter took my grandson to the old one and he had a wonderful time. At two years old he was discovering all the wonderful monstrosities that are featured in that store, the giant fish tank, the shooting range, the climbing wall, the huge selection of boats and pitched tents—for little kids and big kids alike, it is a destination of boundless adventure that is simply just wonderful. When I was a kid I had to get all my outdoor equipment from the Army Store in Fairfield, all my camouflage pants, my rappelling gear, compasses, canteens—all that kind of thing. I still love that store, but Bass Pro has been hard to beat. Their camping equipment is unmatched and whenever I go there I love their roasted almonds. So when my wife returned from Bass Pro she brought home to me a package of those almonds which made for a great snack.

As I was eating those almonds and thinking about the new location I was checking on the new Cabela’s store breaking ground at the Liberty Way location. I had just been looking over the construction at the Liberty Center site—another project I am excited for, and noticed that the new Cabela’s store was moving along in the 4th quarter of 2014 as it was supposed to be. Soon there will be standing an 82,000 sq foot log cabin complete with stone work and all the usual trappings that will give Bass Pro a run for their money just down the road. I am also a fan of Cabela’s and the magnificent store they have in Louisville, Kentucky. It will be quite a treasure to have two of those types of stores in my neighborhood as most communities salivate over having just one. People consider themselves lucky to have a Cabela’s store within a hundred miles of their homes, let alone four or five miles down the road. During the Holiday season if you happen to see George Lang, you should give him a big kiss on the forehead and thank him for keeping West Chester government small enough to stay out of the way of these kinds of developments—allowing them to emerge as profit margins often entice such creativity in business. When it is wondered why this particular point on the map is doing so well, and why there is such a concentrated amount of wealth in one area look at the government—the time it takes to get permits, the rules and regulations of the local bureaucrats and the tax rate–the answer will present itself. Look at areas where fiscal wealth is not present in such abundance and you will find local governments who have mismanaged their resources forcing people to vote with their feet—but pulling out their wealth and leaving.

Many don’t know the Cabela’s story, which is one of the great American success stories. Many don’t know what makes shopping at Cabela’s such a wonderful and fun experience—they just know that it is. So let’s take a moment to get to know the Cabela family—which is featured on many of the videos on this site and are worth watching. Knowing who they are will demonstrate even more articulately why the new West Chester store is such a miracle of capitalism and why I am personally grateful to know of its development.

The company that would become the massive sporting goods reseller and chain was started in 1961. Dick Cabela purchased US$45 worth of fishing flies at a furniture expo in Chicago which were advertised for sale via an advertisement in a local newspaper.[3] When his first effort produced only one response, he placed an ad in a national magazine, Sports Afield, which was more successful. Included with each order was a catalog of other products for sale by Cabela.[3]

As the business grew, Cabela and his wife Mary moved their operation to Sidney, Nebraska in 1963. Dick’s brother Jim also joined the business. From those modest beginnings, the company has since grown to a publicly traded corporation with over US$3 Billion in annual sales.[4]

On February 17, 2014, founder Dick Cabela passed away peacefully at his home in Sidney, Nebraska at the age of 77.

Founders Dick and Mary Cabela and Dick’s brother James Cabela retained 25% ownership of the now public company which trades under the stock symbol CAB.

About half of Cabela’s sales come from hunting-related merchandise with about a third derived from the sale of firearms, ammunition and accessories in 2012. Additionally, in 2012 30% of revenue came from direct sales (through catalog and online orders), and 59% from physical retail stores. The remaining 11% of revenue came from its financial subsidiary and credit card business.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabela%27s

Richard Neil “Dick” Cabela (October 8, 1936 – February 17, 2014) was an American entrepreneur, best known as a co-founder of Cabela’s, a leading outfitter of outdoor sporting and recreational goods.[1][2] He stated that his business was inspired by his bout with polio and a deep love of hunting and fishing.[3] He was also described as an “ardent supporter of the National Rifle Association, a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment, a hunter, and a staunch proponent of wildlife conservation.”[4]

The fruits of their many years of labor carried them to a level of success that enabled Dick Cabela and his wife to build a magnificent home in the tradition of their many stores, a real tribute to wildlife and capitalist enterprise. That home can be seen at the following link along with a descriptive article. It is quite something to see.

http://www.ezpics.com/clients/savides1/PDF/Cabelas%20House%20feature.pdf

What started with a few fishing lures in a newspaper ad became a multi billion dollar industry and it was all started by essentially three people in a family—Dick, his wife, and brother—and they started it just because they had a passion for the products they were selling. Dick at the head of Cabela’s has been one of the most vocal supporters of the Second Amendment and the NRA so his footprint into the kind of politics I support cannot be ignored. So it will be a great pleasure to visit the new Cabela’s store in West Chester.

It took a lot of creative power and tenacity to bring Cabela’s to West Chester, it took a government with as much hands off approach that they could—minus the infrastructure improvements that had to be made off I-75 and the county of Butler for all the stuff that had to go under the ground to make the Liberty Way developments possible. For each new store that is built at Liberty Way there is a story similar to Dick Cabela—which I will think about every time I visit. It is people like him that make America great—and exceptional. That is why it’s a real celebration to enjoy roasted almonds from Bass Pro and to relish the aisles of a Cabela’s looking for new shirts, camping equipment, and rappelling gear. People like Dick Cabela and his family are uniquely American in that they help the environment by making people appreciate it in the best way possible—as active participants through capitalist endeavor. The new store at Liberty Way will have a constant customer in me—I can’t wait!

Rich Hoffman

www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Second Call Defense: The first defense is a firearm, the second is from the parasites that follow

One of the great themes of this site is to highlight the many ways that progressives have attacked traditional American culture.  Progressives have an intense desire to wean Americans away from all forms of self-reliance so that national collectivism and addiction to government services are provoked.  This has never been more evident than in relation to The Second Amendment of The United States Constitution.  In the good ol’ days when a criminal nut-case broke into a home to steal a loaf of bread and was shot dead by the homeowner on the front porch of their property, the sheriff might come out—make a record of the case while enjoying some corn whisky brewed from a room in the back of the home.  The homeowner would be treated respectfully and with honor and the assumption of guilt would be placed squarely on the character lying on the porch stiffening up due to rigor mortis.  However, not any more—as progressives have seeped like viral insects into every aspect of American culture, legal, media, education, elected office, etc.  The homeowner shooting intruders on their property have become saturated with panicky analysis and over-zealot gun grabbing politicians who want to build careers off their suffering.  Progressives directly and indirectly have destroyed the very concept of individual rights in America for which The Second Amendment seeks to protect.  In 2013 if a homeowner shoots a criminal nut case on their front porch the homeowner will be arrested aggressively and thrown into the back of a police car.  Their computers and personal possessions will be confiscated and scrutinized and the property held by the state until prosecution of the shooter is concluded.  The shooter will be charged with murder as the attacker wasn’t inside the home.  The situation will be made worse when it is discussed that the attacker was only armed with a knife deeming no immediate threat to the homeowner who could have avoided opening the door and hoped the attacker would move away on their own.  Progressive groups would then attack the homeowner in court through testimony stating that the attacker was simply hungry because they lost their job and needed food.  Media outlets will then broadcast the story all over America about how the attacker had a “collective right” to the possessions of the homeowner and that if the shooter had only been willing to share his assets with the attacker both would be alive and free today saving the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs.    When the frustrated defendant proclaims on the stand that “it’s not fair that a nut-case trying to attack their private property had more rights than they did,” the prosecuting attorney would simply respond, “how do you know the slain victim was a nut case?  Are you a psychologist?  Where did you study?  What degree do you hold that enables you to proclaim that the victim was a so-called nut-case?  These are the kind of things only professions are qualified to answer.”  This is why George Lang along with a fistful of other patriots has started a new legal group called Second Call Defense.

In fact that was George Lang playing the hypothetical role of a homeowner defending his property from an attacker.  In the video several examples were given about real life tragedies where the homeowner used a gun to defend their life yet found themselves in financial ruin because of the legal aftermath where parasitic entities sought to capitalize off progressive gun legislation that is entirely too aggressive.  Lang knows a lot from an insider’s track about how the legal system can be just as much of a parasite attacking personal liberty as an intruder in a home.  He is a trustee of West Chester Twp, in Ohio where the community pays its police department better wages than any place else from Pittsburg to Indianapolis.  George has seen firsthand many cases similar to the example above cross his desk not just in his home town but all across America.   This is the primary reason that Lang and his group have teamed up with The Buckeye Firearms Foundation to offer gun owners, supporters of The Second Amendment, and property owners’ legal help through Second Call Defense.  They also offer preventative measures against the progressive encroachment of a legal system gone mad.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8823

Progressives wish to believe that government has all the answers and can 100% of the time be relied upon to correct social debaucheries.  Do-gooder politicians like Senator Diane Feinstein have built their careers injecting their progressive beliefs into every tragedy that strategically seeks to focus legal analysis away from individual liberty toward collective salvation.   For well over 100 years now this gradual eroding of personal liberty has shifted the focus of behavioral studies away from any form of property ownership toward collective necessity.  In court shooters will be grilled on the stand as to “how did they knew the attacker was a threat if they were simply on the porch and not brandishing a knife?” The burden of proof falls on the homeowner and not the dead victim as progressive legal interpretations have given the attacker the right to do as they please on the homeowner’s front porch.  The homeowner has an obligation to call the “authorities” who will then inject themselves into the business of the homeowner and supersede their authority on their own property.  To the progressive, the issue is not about guns, or the rights of the shooter, or even the dead body on the porch—the real villain is their hatred of private property and a sinister desire to erase the concept of it from the minds of Americans.

Yet, even if the homeowner called the authorities, there is no guarantee that they will act honorably and in the best interest of the caller.  As George Lang knows all too well, the cops sometimes find that they are not too far away from the decrepit mind of an attacker and are all too tempted to abuse their power at the expense of the homeowner.  Lang had to participate recently in a West Chester Township financial settlement where over-zealous young cops seemingly hungry to prove their manhood beat an un-armed drunk after a fight at a late night sports bar.  The drunk wasn’t even part of the fight that had occurred much earlier but was simply the last person left on the scene.   The cops wanted to exert their authority on someone abusing the man beating him senseless.  Even with video evidence telling the story convincingly the superiors sided with the officers proving beyond doubt that in a court of law, the drunk had little chance of defending himself as all the cops had their stories aligned.  It was when a grand jury examined the case that Lang realized the cops were in the wrong and the decision had to be made to pay the victim in a settlement to avoid further financial detriment to the community because of the police mistake.  CLICK HERE TO SEE MORE ON THE STORY WITH VIDEO.  So even if the cops are called to save the property of a homeowner, there is no way to know what type of officer might show up in a police car these days in a society that values deception over honor.

Second Call Defense was created to provide some help with these types of gun related cases.  Once an attacker decides they want whatever it is that a property owner has, only one threat has been contained if the property owner uses a gun to stop that threat.  From there an entire legal system of progressive activists, deal making politicians, morally deficient law enforcement, and presiding family members who may not have cared one ounce for the life of the defeated attacker, but in death through civil lawsuits and the promise of easy money the life of a typical scum-bag suddenly becomes worth a king’s ransom.  A shooter protecting their property in 2013 America not only must protect themselves from attackers in the middle of the night as shown in the video above, but from the legal parasites who wish to make their careers off the backs of tragedy which is often the real threat.  It is that second threat that Second Call Defense seeks to protect its members from.  No other organization offers such a service in all of America.  Second Call Defense offers training and education on legal firearm use, emergency resources such as a 24/7 legal hotline and upfront cash for attorney retainers and bonds.  Insurance coverage for criminal and civil protection that is backed by the NRA endorsed insurance program is also offered.  Most people can’t afford to put up thousands of dollars to get up to $10,000 upfront for an attorney retainer, immediate cash for a bond up to $250,000, up to $500 per day in wage compensation while in court, up to 40 sessions of psychological support, and up to $250,000 accidental shooting protection, $50,000 criminal defense reimbursement, unlimited civil suit defense protection, and $250,000 civil suit damages protection.  Second Call Defense does all this and more.  The first defense is in the property owner defending their life with a firearm.  The second defense is from the parasites who seek to make livings off the misery left in the wake.  From those, a gun cannot protect anyone.  But now there is a group that can, Second Call Defense.

For more about Second Call Defense check out their website:

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20007

Rich Hoffman

“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

www.tailofthedragonbook.com