Tag: 2A

The Good Old Days

The Good Old Days

With the election less than a week away, I think it is time for a final reminder of the importance of this decision regarding gun freedom. No matter how you personally feel about Donald Trump, there is no other choice if preserving the 2nd Amendment is important to you. There is no third way.

If you vote third party, or simply stay home (kind of the same thing), you are saying that there are other things more important to you than the 2nd Amendment. That’s OK, if that’s how you really feel. But don’t try to convince the rest of us that you’re making the best choice for preserving gun rights…don’t kid yourself, either. And if your grudge against President Trump is because he banned bump stocks and made a couple of comments about gun control (which he never acted on), then explain to me how voting him out of office does anything to improve the position of gun rights in this country. I actually saw a comment on Facebook where someone said they wanted to vote Trump out of office because he “wants his bump stock back.” I hate to tell you, bud…but if you vote Trump out of office, you’ll be looking back at the time he banned bump stocks as “the good old days.”

“Things were so much better when all we had to worry about was bump stocks and rude Tweets.”

That’s because if Trump loses, it will be because Joe Biden won (no, Libertarians…Jo Jorgensen isn’t going to win). And under a Biden (and eventually Harris) presidency, you ain’t getting your bump stock back. In fact, if Biden wins, you quite literally stand to lose everything. If the Democrats keep the House, flip the Senate, and manage to put Biden/Harris in the White House, you’ll wish all they were doing was banning bump stocks. Their gun control agenda…which is documented in detail on their website…is so draconian and so comprehensive that if they successfully implemented even half of it, then it is effectively game over for the 2nd Amendment.

“There’s an old picture of me shooting my AR-15…back before President Biden banned them. I sure do miss that rifle.”

Now, some of you are probably thinking, “No, it isn’t game over. I’ll fight to keep my guns.” How brave of you. How serious you are. So serious that you would consider spilling blood over your gun rights, rather than making the strategic choice and voting for the best hope of avoiding that fight. So serious that you would consider lining up sights on your fellow Americans and pulling the trigger before you would consider voting for Trump. All because of bump stocks and a few ill-considered words.

“Yes, I voted for Biden. Trump was so rude! No, I still haven’t gotten my bump stock back. Why do you ask?”

Again, if Biden wins every single gun control measure imaginable is on the table. A Biden administration is guaranteed to make life worse for gun owners than a Trump administration. Then, if the battle for the 2nd Amendment becomes a literal one instead of a figurative one, things become still worse for gun owners…as well as everybody else. In either of these futures, we’ll be looking back at the Trump presidency as the good old days.

“Remember when we thought Trump was the worst for banning bump stocks? Before we voted for Biden and he banned everything? Those were the good old days.”

Original post at deltabravocharlie.com

Who Are You?

Who Are You?

Original post at deltabravocharlie.com

While catching up on a podcast of Tom Gresham’s “Gun Talk,” I heard Tom say this in the last minute of Hour 3: “You don’t like his tweets?…You’re going to give up your gun rights over tweets? That says a lot about YOU.” It’s a great point, and worth discussing.

So what exactly does that say about you? What I heard was Tom suggesting that it says you’re the kind of person who would sacrifice the Second Amendment over something as unimportant as some rude comments and tweets. It says you’re the kind of person who is so sensitive to the President’s commentary that you are willing to either vote for Joe Biden, vote third party, or sit out the election (kind of the same as voting third party). It says that that you are the kind of person who values a president who “acts presidential” even more than you value protecting the Second Amendment. I think he’s absolutely right. I also think it might say something much worse.

Because to steal a phrase from the opposition, “here’s the deal”: Either Joe Biden or Donald Trump will be the next president. (Sorry, Jo Jorgensen supporters. In case no one told you yet, she is not going to win.)

So let’s do Donald Trump first. Gun people who are reluctant to vote for Trump will point to two reasons (other than rude tweets). Their first objection is that he outlawed bump stocks. We can argue the merits and demerits of that another day, but in my opinion that was never a hill worth dying on. If you think it is…well, let’s just say I understand why the President’s tweets upset you so much. Next, they’ll point out that he made comments which indicated that he supported red flag laws. He also didn’t act on it. That’s it. Those are the two anti-gun arguments commonly leveled at the President.

Now, gun folks who latch onto that last one also like to insist that statements in support of gun control are no different from actual gun control. (You know, sort of like how a certain segment of the population equates words to actual violence. But I digress.) Still, if we’re going to hold the President’s words against him, then it’s only fair that we hold Candidate Biden to the same standard, and hold his words against him. If you are unaware of his stance on guns, I suggest you click on over to https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/ and review his plan to “end gun violence.” And how is he going to end it? By enacting the most comprehensive and draconian agenda of gun control ever. Again, if you want the particulars, head on over to his gun control page and read for yourself. I’m not going to list it all out here, but it is safe to say that any gun control measure you can think of is in there. In fact, if Biden’s gun control ambitions are realized, you’ll be referring to the time when Trump took away bump stocks as “the good old days.” No one serious about gun rights can be serious about Joe Biden.

“But Dave,” some of you might say, “it isn’t really just an either/or choice. We can not vote for Trump because we don’t like him, and then if Biden comes for our guns we’ll fight!”

If you could avoid this by voting, would you?

OK, I get it. Molon labe, cold dead hands, Wolverines!…blah, blah, blah. But what that tells me is that you’re the kind of person who would rather go to war to defend gun rights than to vote to save them. That you’re the kind of person who finds the prospect of spilling the blood of your countrymen preferable to voting for Donald Trump…because of tweets, bump stocks, and and some poorly considered comments which have never been acted upon. (Also…I can’t help but notice that none of you have actually gone to war over any of those things yet. Just saying.)

If you could avoid this by voting, would you?

But if you truly favor the prospect of allowing things to slide to the point of possible bloodshed; if you can’t bring yourself to vote for rude, tweeting Trump even if it could save the nation from violent clashes over gun rights…what does that say about you? I think what it says about you…at best…is that you’ll throw the Second Amendment overboard because of some tweets and rude comments. And what it says about you…at worst…is that even though you understand a Biden gun control presidency could cost lives in defense of the Second Amendment, you still won’t vote Trump to stop it.

Is that who you are? Are you a person who would embrace and exhaust every peaceful option to defend the Second Amendment before resorting to violence? Or are you a person who would sit back and willingly let things slide until there is no non-violent option left? Who are you?

If you could avoid this by voting, would you?
Dream On

Dream On

An awful lot of gun people seem to be having a little crush lately, and the object of their affection is Libertarian Party presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen. I have to say that while she gives great soundbites, I don’t think there is a whole lot of substance underneath the surface. Kind of reminds me of this 90’s tune from obscure Canadian band, The Northern Pikes…

Now we can consider all the ins and outs of the Electoral College, and how Dr. Jorgensen doesn’t stand a snowballs chance of scoring even a single electoral vote. But if you’re politically engaged enough to even know who she is, then you already know her odds of winning. If…after considering all that…you are still considering throwing your vote away by checking the box for her “on principle” come November, then this is the post for you.

It is admittedly easy for a pro-2A voter to swoon when she speaks on her plans for the right to keep and bear arms. Just listen to what she had to say to Tom Gresham on Gun Talk a couple of weeks ago:

Except her plans aren’t really much of a plan. Taken at face value, she is a gun- rights advocate’s dream. Abolish all gun laws passed in the last 100 years? Yes! Abolish the ATF? Count me in! It all sounds good on paper, until you notice that she offers nothing in the way of a strategy to actually accomplish any of this. She even says “if it were up to me I would get rid of every gun law passed in the last 100 years”? The thing is, it isn’t up to her, or any president. If she’s unaware of that, she might not have a solid grasp of what the office actually entails. If she is aware of that, then she’s straight up pandering to the gun vote.

It was the lack of detail in the Gun Talk interview that led me to Jorgensen’s website to see if there was any more information on her plans to restore the Second Amendment. Imagine my surprise when I found…absolutely nothing. There is nothing at all on her website which addresses gun rights, even in passing. It is not listed under her “Issues,” or anywhere else on the site that I could find. No mention. At all.

What does this say about her sincerity or seriousness when it comes to the Second Amendment? It tells me that if you’re looking to Jo Jorgensen to restore gun freedoms in this country, you can dream on. She stands no chance, and has no plan to achieve what she claims she aspires to even of she did somehow win. And if you somehow cling to the idea that a third-party vote does anything other than help elect Joe Biden, you need to wake up. The addled Democrat’s gun policy embraces every radical anti-gun policy you can imagine; he is no moderate on the issue of the Second Amendment (and neither are any of his potential running mates, who will likely end up as president early in Biden’s first term).

There is no third way. There is no realistic strategy for preserving gun freedom other than a vote for Donald Trump. Keep dreaming that dream, and wake up to a nightmare.

Original post at deltabravocharlie.com

Top 12 Episodes of this Podcast

Top 12 Episodes of this Podcast

Top 12 

How Does It Feel To Be Right?

 

Lessons For Colion Noir

 

John Wick on Gun Rights

 

Armed Christian Perspectives

5 Things You Need to Know Before Shooting Naked

 

Why We Love History (and you should too!)

3D Gun Printing is BS

 

Hurricane Florence

 

 

Five Things You Need To Know About EDC

 

5 Things you should know about shotguns

 

5 Mistakes In Gun Rights That Make You Look Dumb

 

Keeping your Back Hole Out of Jail

 

Gun Control Is Dead

Gun Control Is Dead

Let’s be honest…the ol’ gal was kind of on her last legs anyway, but it’s beginning to look like the hordes of anarchist rioters burning America’s cities may just have delivered the coup de grace to the gun ban movement. Let me explain…

tenor.gif

What I mean when I say, “gun control is dead” is that popular support for gun control has been effectively killed off. The convergence this spring and summer of a pandemic virus and now violent riots in our cities seems to have done a pretty fair job of finishing off the ideas that “you don’t need a gun,” and “only the police should have guns,” and “the police will protect you.”

A quick browse of Twitter last night revealed numerous posts by people announcing that they are done with the idea that being without teeth and claws makes them anything other than prey. And they don’t want to be prey. If you look around, you can find plenty of similar sentiment out there on social media and other opinion outlets. While it isn’t scientific, it isn’t my imagination, either.

New Guns.jpg

I believe that this year’s events (and we’re not even halfway done) have awakened a lot of people to a concept that many of us in the community of gun enthusiasts and 2nd Amendment supporters have understood for a long time…

Korean shop owners during the 1992 LA riots.

YOU. ARE. ON. YOUR. OWN.

No matter what you have been told, there are multiple court cases which have set the precedent that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. And legal obligation aside, it isn’t even possible for the police to arrive at your emergency before you do. Most of the time, most cops will do their absolute best…even risk their own lives…to come to your aid. But most of the time isn’t all of the time, and if you want a guarantee that someone will be there to defend your life at all times, the safest bet is on yourself. I think current events have caused a many of Americans to see this more clearly than ever; the mask is off all of the gun control lies which have been told for decades.

There are obviously very good reasons to have an AR-15.

There are good reasons to have magazines which hold a lot of ammunition.

There are reasons that waiting periods and “may issue” permits and background checks are harmful.

guns-los-angeles-mario-tama-getty-1068x722.jpg

There are reasons you should not be dependent on another to come rescue you.

Capture.JPG

So while the gun ban lobby won’t abandon their efforts to disarm everyday Americans (and we’ll keep fighting them), I think the events of the last few months have cemented their eventual failure, because those everyday Americans have now been awakened to the truth. Guns save lives, and the freedom to own guns is a very real and important right. As a serious idea, gun control in America is dead. Good riddance.

13871304_web1_M5-181017-EDH-LynnwoodColdcase-1024x694.jpg

Original post at deltabravocharlie.com

Black Man With A Gun

Black Man With A Gun

The end of African American history observance month 2020 is this week.
I’ve always been a fan of history. I don’t like what happened most of time. I don’t romanticize about it. I don’t even wish I was born earlier. I had enough drama in my own lifetime.
 I’ve even made some history.

My friends from the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) asked me to do a little video to remind my American family of how far we’ve come and how far we have to still go.

 Freedom to live as our Republic was intended is always under attack.

Most people don’t know I’ve been defending the right to keep and bear arms publicly since 1991. I am the founder of the first African American National Gun Club, the Tenth Cavalry. We had chapters in DC, Baltimore, NJ, Chicago and Georgia. I’ve helped launch several  untraditional gun groups.

I was one of the champions for concealed carry reform nationally.  I lobbied the US Congress and in the state legislatures of Virginia, Texas, South Carolina, Michigan, Maryland, and Wisconsin. I have been producing podcasts since 2007.  The Black Man With A Gun Show podcast  (2007- 2019) was one of the first pro-gun podcasts. I have voiced commercials for TV and traditional radio against racist gun laws before social media. I have been featured in four documentaries. I has authored several books.  I’ve recently just written a couple of pieces for the USCCA.

But in December 2019 I decided to let the next generation have at it.

 Well until requested to speak on this video.
 

I may be the best that ever did it and got away with it. 

 I’m still around if you need me though. Just send up the Black signal!

Check out these podcast:  Black Man With A Gun Show ,  Speak Life church , and  Indian Motorcycle radio  The Books, Kenn has written.
The Gun Owners’ Guide to Democrat Presidential Candidates

The Gun Owners’ Guide to Democrat Presidential Candidates

Are you ticked off about President Trump’s lack of support for the Second Amendment? Steamed that he banned bump stocks? Are you annoyed that he hasn’t signed executive orders repealing FOPA, GCA, NFA, and enacting nationwide constitutional carry? Maybe you’d like to teach him a lesson, and vote for a Democrat…but you can’t decide which candidate is the best choice for a no-compromise gun rights purist like yourself?

Hey…I’ve appointed enough conservative federal judges to overturn gun-control laws for a generation! (Including the bump stock ban.)

You’re in luck! Read on, and I’ll help you deduce which Democrat you can trust to respect the Second Amendment and protect your gun rights, all while making you feel better by sticking it to that bump-stock banning orange man! What follows is a list of Democrat candidates, their individualized positions on specific gun rights issues, for a simple compare and contrast guide to help you make your selection.

I don’t like (your) guns! Don’t be stupid!

First up is Michael Bloomberg:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

I don’t like guns, except around my gulags!

Then comes Bernie Sanders:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

Of course I don’t like guns. Not for you, anyway.

And then there’s Pete Buttegieg:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

I don’t like guns just as much as the rest of them don’t like guns.

Next is Amy Klobuchar:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

Do I like guns? Two words…Wounded Knee!

And then Elizabeth Warren:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

I got your double barrel shotgun right here.

Then there’s Joe Biden:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

 

This is NOT a finger gun! Don’t like ‘em!

And don’t forget Tom Steyer:

  • Would ban private transfers without a background check. No private sales, loans, or gifts.

  • Would implement “red flag” laws, allowing confiscation of guns without due process.

  • Would ban the most commonly owned semiautomatic rifle in the country.

  • Would ban standard capacity magazines common to the majority of semiauto rifles and pistols in the country.

  • Would ban bump stocks.

  • Would appoint liberal judges.

There you go. That should make it pretty easy for any voter who values the Second Amendment to decide which Democrat is the best choice for gun owners in 2020. None of them!

Inconceivable!

Inconceivable!

I was promised “human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together…mass hysteria!”

Listening to the anti-gun left and their media mouthpieces, I thought there was so much gunfire out there that I’d need to do 3-5 second rushes just to make it from my driveway to the front door.

So imagine my surprise when yesterday the FBI released its Uniform Crime Report for 2018, and the data says that violent crime fell by 3.9% from 2017! Just when I thought things were getting worse, it turns out that when it comes to violent crime…things are actually getting better.

How the heck is an anti-gunner supposed to remain logical with facts like these?! Because the facts are that…even with hundreds of millions of guns in civilian hands…crime is down, violence is down, and firearms accidents are down.

I Was A Gun Confiscator

I Was A Gun Confiscator

Originally posted at deltabravocharlie.com on September 2, 2019.

Time to tell a story…a true story. I’m going to leave out specifics regarding locations and names, but this really happened, and I was there.

I was a cop, and I participated in a gun confiscation.

About 20 years ago, I was on a municipal police department SWAT team serving a small city near Cincinnati. One afternoon the pager (yes, pager) went off, and we all reported to the city building to gear up and be briefed on the situation.

The situation was this: A resident of an apartment in a small, four-unit building had called the PD to report that she had heard a neighbor in his apartment ranting about wanting to “kill everybody.” The complainant went on to state that she knew that the man who lived in the apartment had several guns, and that she had driven him to a local store recently to purchase a home surveillance camera kit.

Based on this single complaint, we loaded the truck and rolled the team out to the address, setting up out of sight of the building. The Assistant Chief (who held a law degree) arrived on scene and assumed incident command. The landlord was contacted for floor plans, at which time we also learned that the resident had no phone. This meant that the only options for contacting the man were to “knock and talk” or to break a window and put in a throw phone (a portable, hard line phone which can be inserted into a target location).

An example of a throw phone set.

The concern expressed by the Team Commander and Assistant Chief was that since the suspect was presumed to be armed and have surveillance cameras, we would only get one opportunity to approach with any possibility of surprise. He was on a ground floor with a window facing the street and only entrance to the building, meaning the team would be quite exposed with about 40-50 yards to cover once we moved on the apartment. It would be extremely dangerous if he were alerted to our presence and chose to fight. So the Assistant Chief made the decision to declare “exigent circumstances,” and directed us to execute a no-knock dynamic entry with breach.

Not me…just a picture of a team hitting a door.

I was Number 1 on the stack, with the responsibility to ram the door immediately to clear the way for the rest of the team to enter and apprehend the suspect. To make a long story short(er), we knocked this guy’s door down, tackled and cuffed him, and took his guns…based on a single complaint from a single witness. No criminal history. No psychological evaluation. No judge. No warrant.

I don’t recall exactly how things were resolved post-incident, except for some generalities. I remember that the man ended up being released, perhaps after agreeing to a psychological evaluation. I honestly don’t remember, except that he got to go home in fairly short order. I don’t even think he was criminally charged with anything. The 14 guns we confiscated from him were eventually returned; I think it took about a week or so. Basically, it ended up being a big nothingburger.

What I do remember is that we heard no ranting coming from his apartment before we went in, and he was genuinely surprised when his door came down that night; I remember him standing in his apartment with his hands up saying, “What’s going on, fellas?” as our team sergeant tackled him.

But the overriding memory is of how easily our police department leaders…based on the uncorroborated statement of a single witness…made the decision to enter this man’s home without a warrant, to deprive him of his freedom, and to seize his property. If police conduct of this sort bothers you, then consider what will happen when police departments are given a virtual green light* with red flag laws.

This is me, taking a break from SWAT training, “back in the day.”

*And yes, I will concede that the difference is that most red flag laws do call for a hearing in front of a judge prior to confiscation. I will also tell you that this will prove to be little more than a speed bump. Most judges will prefer to “err on the side of safety” and confiscate first, due process later. After all, this is exactly how red flag laws are designed to work.

If It Saves One Life

If It Saves One Life

It is one of the biggest lies gun control people tell…if not the biggest.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard someone argue in favor of the latest, most awesomest new gun law proposal, acknowledging that although it won’t actually end violent crime, it will be worth it “if it saves even one life.”

Anyone who tells you this is the bar for success is a liar. A big, fat, pants-on-fire, Pinocchio-nosed liar.

The truth is that in our society, we happily accept thousands of deaths for mere convenience as a matter of routine. There are any number of laws we could pass which would save one life.

Ban alcohol.

88,000 deaths per year

Ban peanuts.

200 deaths per year

Ban cars.

40,000 deaths per year

Some of these things cause a lot of death, and some of them only cause a little, but they are all widely accepted as a fact of life in the United States, and they are legal. Ridding our nation entirely of any one of these things would doubtless save at least one life (likely more than one), yet there is no serious movement to completely ban any of them.

And that’s despite the fact that some of these things are purely luxuries. No one needs to drink alcohol. No one needs tobacco. No one needs to eat peanuts. And don’t give me any of that crap about what you have a right to do, if taking away that right saves one life. You think a total ban on peanuts wouldn’t save one life? Of course it would, and what difference does it make whether or not you like peanuts?. But we would surely get more “bang for our buck” with total bans on alcohol and tobacco, right? Want to sit at a bar with a drink, a smoke, and a bowl of peanuts? Forget it. You don’t need it, and it would save one life.

I couldn’t even find a picture of all three together…

“But Dave,” you say, “we do need cars!” Do we really? There was a time in this country where there were no cars, and people managed just fine. But it sure is nice to be able to live more than a mile or two away from your job, isn’t it? It sure is nice to be able to not have to hitch up the horse and buggy to go to the store and get groceries, huh? But people did it. (Some people still do.)

Livin’ life.

By now you’re probably thinking, “Dave that’s just silly. You can’t be seriously suggesting we return to travel by foot and by horse and buggy.” Of course I’m not. But what I am suggesting is that we are willing to accept death caused by cars in order (for those of us who aren’t killed by them) to enjoy a higher quality of life. Think about that. We will accept that cars kill people so that we can enjoy a more comfortable and convenient life.

“Now, Dave,” you’re thinking, “that’s not 100% true. We don’t just accept deaths caused by cars. We are constantly striving to improve safety and save lives on the highway.” No argument there. And if you are willing to accept the inconvenience and cost, there are things we could do to save at least one life when it comes to cars. How about mandating breathalyzer ignition interlocks on every car in the United States? Sure, it would be expensive and inconvenience those who don’t drink and drive…but it would save one life. How about we lower the national speed limit to 20 mph? Talk about inconvenient…but it would save one life. Too much? Okay…then let’s just mandate that all cars must be speed limited to not exceed…oh, pick a number…70 mph? Nobody needs a Dodge Hellcat.

Capable of 204 MPH. Nobody needs to go 204 MPH.

But remember, we’re not debating cost/benefit, and we’re sure as hell not debating your silly rights. The debate we’re having is how to save one life, and removing cars from our society would save one life.

Or would it? Isn’t is possible that on the whole, cars save lives because now people won’t be dropping dead early from walking to work every day, or by the number of lives lost in horse and buggy accidents? Don’t cars save lives by making it easier to get to the doctor, and to the pharmacy to obtain life-saving medications? Perhaps, but again that debate gets into the area of cost/benefit analysis, and the gun-banners sure as hell don’t want to go there. Even the anti-gun CDC reluctantly confirmed over 2 million defensive gun uses per year, well in excess of any deaths by accidental, suicidal, or homicidal use of a gun. If you want to go all cost/benefit, guns win.

You should see by now where all of this “if it saves one life” stuff leads. It willingly ignores the reality that we do in fact accept a certain amount of death in order to enjoy the comforts of modern life and to enjoy the rights of free people. To say differently is a lie.

Originally posted at deltabravocharlie.com on 8/30/2019.

Thanks For Visiting