, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Before we start today, I would Just like to inform my loyal readers that yesterday, your humble blogger debuted on the Catholics4Trump website. Here is the link.

Next order of business.  It is with the utmost of heartfelt joy that I learned yesterday that the Scholasticum will be teaching the Sentences of Peter Lombard at post-graduate level. (see here) For those who are not familiar with either the work or its significance to Catholic theology and rationalist philosophy in general, here is a quick primer. (see here) Furthermore, please also note the “novel method of instruction” under which the Sentences will be taught, in order to “grasp the Scholastic Method of disputation”. What is being attempted is to purge the discourse of various philosophical errors and logical fallacies which are the bane of contemporary academics, by introducing a strictly scientific methodology. To get a better understanding of the environment in which this movement to rationalism and scientific discourse is taking place, I am linking to a post that appeared on the American Thinker website titled The Scientific Method Is Racist. (see here) And on that note, without further comment, I will move on.

As to today’s subject matter, it is an extension of yesterday’s post titled Hidden Electorate: The Underemployed. (see here) In that post, we identified a significant segment of the U.S. electorate that is either unemployment or no longer looking for work. We noted that this category comprises 102 million working age U.S. citizens or roughly 1/3 of the US population.

What makes this figure even more relevant to this year’s election cycle is that the needs that this segment of the population is having a hard time satisfying, are the most basic need as identified by Abraham Maslow, namely the physiological needs. This above identified situation is very favorable to the Trump candidacy as was explained in the above mentioned post. This could also be the cause behind the large number of polls that are indicating that Trump has a large lead over his challenger. (see here and here)

In today’s post, we will focus our analytical crosshairs on the second of Maslow’s identified needs: safety and security. There is no single issue that encompasses the safety and security issue and gun ownership.

This subject matter of gun ownership we have covered in a previous post titled Dishonesty Is The ONLY Neo-Modernist Policy. (see here). In this post, we referenced an article written by Jim Quinn who observes the following:

So, with homicides at a 25 year low and completely confined to the urban ghettos where young black men kill other young black men, we need new gun laws to restrict what white people can own? It makes you wonder.

Yes it does.

But back to the subject at hand. What we are interested in today is to establish the percentage of the population that owns a firearm, which then will serve as our proxy to establish what percentage of the electorate would feel threatened by the “anti-gun” rhetoric/policies of a Clinton presidency, thereby voting for Donald J. Trump.

According to another Zero Hedge post titled There’s No Correlation Between Gun Ownership, Mass Shootings, & Murder Rates (see here) a reference link was provided by the leftist Brady organization which provided the following information:

One-third of Americans reported owning a gun, ranging from 5.2% in Delaware to 61.7% in Alaska. (see here)

The figures above were as of 2013, which means that they need to be adjusted for the number of firearm purchased since. As for the present situation, the following appears to be the case:

According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. That’s an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents —far ahead of Yemen, which comes in second with about 55 firearms for every 100 people, or Switzerland, which is third with 46 guns for every 100 people. (see here)

As to the percentage of the population that would be threatened by an assault on the Second Amendment under a Clinton presidency, that percentage appears to be above 41% of the general population. (see here)

Aside, I am using the above statistics to identify a minimal level of the US population that would be affected by a Clinton victory. The percentage is most likely much, much, much higher. The trend is indicated here and here and here.  Ending this section, here is the OBJECTIVE assessment of the present day lay of the land:

The Obama administration’s pro-gun control stance has done nothing but make the gun culture stronger and cause firearms arms to fly off gun store shelves. As PlanetFreeWill’s Joseph Jankowski notes, under Obama, background checks for guns reached 141.4 million through the end of May, amounting to sales of about 52,600 a day, according to the FBI… And 2016 is on pace to surpass last year’s record.

As to now the Clinton campaign and specifically Hillary… or rather Killary will address the basic safety and security need as defined by Abraham Maslow, this information appeared recently on the website of our friends at Project Veritas. The relevant film clip is here:

For those who have not heard what the Clinton delegate Mary Bayer said, here is the transcripts:

When asked if she thought Hillary would support banning all guns, Bayer said “for sure… You have to take that sort of moderate ‘We just wanna have common sense legislation so our children are safe!’ You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it.”

So there you have it.

But this is not the end of the story. On another tape, (at the top of this post) the Project Veritas reporter asked a Clinton staffer if they would put a “gun-free zone” sign in front of their house. The staffer, who is promoting gun was, shall we say… not open to this suggestion.

Concluding this post, what is critical importance to understand here?

First, from the OBJECTIVE evidence presented above, the Clinton policy of “banning ownership of firearms” is not a RATIONAL or even “well thought out” policy. This is clearly evident from the Project Veritas film where the staffer, once he thinks through the issue (putting a no-gun sign in his window) realizes that it makes no sense. Damning if you ask me.

The second take-away is that the Clinton campaign knowingly and with premeditation has made a decision to LIE in order to pursue their gun control agenda.  Any policy based on falsehood is not a prudent or worthwhile undertaking at its base. Yet the reason that the Clinton campaign needs to LIE is that the OBJECTIVE DATA proves their position as being a FALSE position. Given that the Clinton campaign would disregard OBJECTIVE DATA to push through an “ERRONEOUS” position is the definition of an IDEOLOGICAL position with all the unintended consequences that these bad policies entail.

And lastly, the issue that interests us the most here in this post is the percentage of the population that this ERRONEOUS firearms policy would alienate if not outright threaten. This percentage of the electorate is over 41%. This 41+% of the population that would be affected by the ERRONEOUS Clinton gun ban/confiscation policy, not only sees firearms ownership as an IMPERATIVE for self protection, but this IMPERATIVE appears to be intensifying. This is borne out by the rapid increase in new firearm sales observed over the last two years. (see here)

Therefore, what we have described above is the following:

  • one the one hand, a growing segment of the U.S. population (electorate) sees the issue of gun ownership as an IMPERATIVE. This IMPERATIVE is intensifying.
  • on the other hand, we have a IDEOLOGICAL approach, completely divorced from OBJECTIVE REALITY and OBJECTIVE DATA of the Clinton campaign, that is planning on enacting restrictions to the Second Amendment through FRAUDULANT means, i.e. DECEIT and DISHONESTY

The issue that is at stake, is one that addresses the second most basic need of human beings after the satisfaction of their physiological needs, i.e. the safety and security of their persons and families.

Therefore, is it any wonder that in the latest polls, such as the one below,

Trump poll USC

…Donald J. Trump is in the lead.

But what is of utmost importance to note, is that this lead appears to be grounded in the fact that Donald J. Trump is addressing the most basic needs of not only the US electorate, but of humanity itself.