by Doug Eiderzen
60 Minutes reports that drunk driving is responsible for the death of 13,000 Americans a year, Drunk driving kills more than 13,000 Americans a year – that’s one every 39 minutes. Authorities call it an epidemic, Sources: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/31/60minutes/main4694666.shtml
The following is for thought evaluation. Let us do a compare and contrast as to the government’s motivation, ploy, and attack on our 2nd Amendment rights versus the liquor, beer, and wine industry. The government states that the assault type weapon, high capacity magazines, etc. are responsible for much destruction and so very many deaths that they (the government) must ban such for our health and safety. As the government attempts to disarm us for our own good, the schism between the racially minded White person and the government grows wider and wider and wider. Concerning the government’s proposed “assault weapon ban”, is the government striving to remove the stated weapons, magazines, etc. for health and safety reasons and preventing tragedies? I doubt it.
As to the above, and for the sake of argument, let us use the liquor industry for an example. It is humorous to see liquor advertisements stating “drink responsibly”. These liquor corporations could give a “tinkers damn” how much one drinks or where the alcohol happens to be consumed; as long as the person guzzles down the corporation product, this bunch could care less about how much has been drunk (please excuse the pun) or where the drinking takes place. There are many, many individuals who are injured and killed by drunk drivers.
So, how about limiting the box capacity of beer? Why on earth would a person need a box containing 30 beers? There is no need for this 30 beer high capacity box. Or since whiskey and wine products are often purchased as 12 bottles to a case, this high capacity case should, also, not be allowed. These high capacity boxes of beer, whiskey type products, and wine are just not needed. Why would a person need a box containing 12 bottles? How about, in the State of New York, no one may have more than seven beers in the refrigerator at one time? Or, since distilled whiskey products are stronger by degree level, not allowing more than a 1/7th amount, in a bottle, of the 80 proof/40 percent volume product? If a person buys a bottle of 80 proof/40 percent volume alcohol, he or she would need to pour out enough so that the 1/7th limit, within the bottle, is reached. And, since Malt Liquor, by volume, is stronger than regular beer, what about making malt liquor illegal? The type whiskey product that is above the 80 proof/40 percent volume is, simply, too dangerous to be legal. Senator Feinstein could attach different liquor, beer, and wine bottles to her pegboard. How about doing background checks on individuals buying alcohol? Since alcohol is a great factor in highway accidents and domestic violence, do background checks on individuals trying to purchase any alcohol product. A person with any negative circumstances shown within his or her background check will not be allowed to buy liquor, beer, or wine. Maybe, in 1998, if such a background checking system had been in place, at least 84 U.S. congress members would not have had to claim “Congressional immunity” to get out of drunk driving charges (Reference: How Many US congress members have criminal records?, answers.com). Close the “parking lot” loopholes: Individuals buying liquor, beer, and wine for other people (people that, by government standards, are not allowed to consume alcohol). And, one may not buy more than one alcohol product within a time period of one month. Let us not forget the two-week waiting period for the buying of any liquor, beer, or wine product. People do not kill other people, spirits do. There is too easy an access to liquor, beer, and wine. Enough is enough; this nation simply cannot survive another tragedy like Chappaquiddick.
Why not offer a buy-back program on all alcoholic beverages (new or used). A person could turn in new or used liquor, beer, or wine products and receive rewards. Examples of rewards may include but are not limited to a $1 coupon toward a one year subscription to the New York Times newspaper or a $1 coupon for dinner at the local fast food restaurant or a 25 cent coupon for taking the entire family to the cinema for a viewing of “Django Unchained” (please note: if one does not take his or her entire family and, thus, place said family on the guilt trip merry-go-round then the 25 cent coupon is null and void) or a 25 cent coupon for purchasing any one of the following movies “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”, “To Kill a Mockingbird”, or “Mississippi Burning” (please note: if a person purchases all three movies he or she will still only receive a total of 25 cents). Please understand, these are just examples of incentives and the stated reward or gift amounts may be way too high.
The above situation deals with the unbelievable hoax and incredible deception used by the governmental system through a comparison; the above is, only, for compare and contrast judgment. No one is trying to infringe or impose upon another person’s right to drink whatever he or she desires. No one is proposing any of the above concerning the alcohol beverage. However, drunk driving is extremely serious and accidents involving alcohol are often caused by the illegal person who should not be in our country to begin with. This illegal interloper (which if the government has its way will soon be designated as a legal interloper) is to blame for many of the tragedies on our roads and highways.
What is being compared happens to be the ludicrousness, absurdity, double standards, and hypocrisy of the system: the targeting of our 2nd Amendment to disarm the people by using health and safety as an excuse. The 2nd Amendment was given to European Americans/Europeans by our Founding Fathers (European Americans/Europeans). A person needs to understand that the 2nd Amendment is the binding tie; in many ways, this 2nd Amendment holds our society together. Again, this amendment holds all together: if the 2nd Amendment is infringed upon, such an infringement will eventually lead to the act of elimination. Our European American/European Founding Fathers understood this. Once it is infringed upon, there will continue the attack to entirely remove the 2nd Amendment.
Our antagonists, within the political arena and the controlled media, are placing the usual spin on firearms’ legislation as they will eventually proceed to do with the illegal immigration issue (every White person desiring a firearm is a White supremacist [Sikh Temple Shooting type stories issued and revisited by the press] and everyone against making the illegal immigrant a legal citizen is a racist [illegal families torn apart, illegal families exploited, the oppressed illegal children type stories issued and revisited by the press]). The gullibility, naïveté, and lack of caution, displayed by the average White person, seem to know no bounds. The White person is standing next to the abyss in regard to loosing his or her rights; and, he or she, will soon completely loose his or her race, culture, and ethnicity if the illegal alien is granted legal citizen status. The White person should ask himself or herself, just whom did the European American/European Founding Fathers recognize as citizens?
Why should (and how can?) any European American/European person trust this governmental system (anti-White agencies, anti-White professional politicians, anti-White activist Judges, anti-White activist educators, anti-White Laws and regulations passed, etc.); truly, what does any White person have in common with a Mr. Obama, Senator Joe Lieberman, Mr. Eric Holder, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, New York Senator Charles Schumer, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, Bill and Hillary Clinton and others of the same ilk? What has this governmental system done for the White person’s best interest in the last 10 years, the last 20 years, the last 40 years, the last 60 years, etc? The White person is being robbed of his or her rights and country. We are on the threshold of losing our race, culture, and ethnicity. So, if the threshold is crossed, will not the elimination and destruction of us ultimately occur? If there ever was a time to become European Americans united, this IS the time. With all being compared and stated, the European American/European person must ask himself or herself, does the government, really, just want to remove assault type weapons for, only, health and safety purposes and preventing tragedies? Again, I seriously doubt it.