Tag Archives: gun control

Not one citizen of New Jersey complies with bump stock ban

Update: It appears that the same thing has happened in Denver, where no one has turned in their bump stocks also.

Pushback: Despite a new law that criminalizes the possession of bump stocks and requires their surrender, not a single citizen of New Jersey has complied.

Despite the fact that New Jersey residents who are caught with bump stocks could face up to 5 years in prison and up to $15,000 in fines, reports have claimed that not a single bump stock has been turned in, even though the deadline to turn the newly illegal accessories over to police was last month.

New Jersey is not alone. Massachusetts became the first state to ban bump stocks earlier this year, and even though the state’s new legislation threatens violators with up to 18 months in jail, only four people have complied by voluntarily surrendering their bump stocks to police.

These laws are stupid, and are unconstitutional in that they are a taking of private property without due compensation, one of the main reasons people are not complying.

As the gun control efforts by the left accelerate and become more radical, expect more people to defy their efforts. Sadly, that is not really a defeat for the left, as one of their goals here is to encourage contempt for the law, thus making it culturally easier for them to defy it as well. Since they can never win at the ballot box, they need to create a circumstance where it becomes acceptable for them to take power by force, and this can only happen if they have convinced enough people that such illegal action is acceptable.

Everything the left (and the Democratic Party) has been doing politically since Donald Trump’s election suggests this. The worst aspect of it unfortunately is that they are succeeding. Nor has this effort been limited to their gun control proposals. The ability of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats to avoid all prosecution for some very obvious crimes contributes to this effort as well.

Share

Former Obama Education Secretary calls for school boycott over guns

I actually agree with him! The former Secretary of Education from the Obama administration, Arne Duncan, is calling for parents to pull their kids from public schools until the “gun laws are changed to make them safe.”

Personally, if I had children I would have never allowed them to attend any of today’s public schools, not because of gun safety but because they do a worse than horrible job of teaching kids anything.

Moreover, educating your kids either in a private school or at home gives you a much better chance of protecting them. At home you can be armed. Private schools have more flexibility, and will more likely include armed teachers if that’s what the parents want.

Public schools, and the unions that run them, not so much. I really do hope Duncan’s boycott catches on. It will give us a chance to shut down the failing public schools and replace them with competing organizations that actually get the job done.

Share

Boulder bans assault weapons, gun owners sue

Fascists: The city council in Boulder, Colorado, this week passed a local law banning “assault weapons” and other gun accessories.

Its city council unanimously passed an ordinance on Tuesday to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons, bump stocks and high-capacity magazines — becoming one of a handful of cities nationwide that has taken action to change its gun laws in the wake of the Parkland, Florida, shooting massacre.

…The new law requires people who own bump stock devices and magazines that hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition to dispose of or sell the firearm accessories by July 15, according to Colorado Public Radio.

A lawsuit against the law was immediately filed.

I think however that this quote by the city councilwoman who proposed the law illustrates best its stupidity.

“It felt like a no-brainer to propose this.”

That’s right, it is very clear that the council and this councilwoman used no brains at all in writing and approving the law. It not only is vague, unenforceable, and oppressive, it puts the blame for past murders on innocent law-abiding citizens.

The problem however is that this might very well be constitutional. As long as this local ordinance does not violate Colorado state law, it would be permissible under the Constitution, as the second amendment was designed to limit federal authority, not state or local authorities. As such, it illustrates the growing rise of fascism in some communities within the U.S., places where the majority sees nothing wrong with oppressing a minority, merely because they disagree about public policy. Expect more of this in the coming years. Expect also that these fascist localities to become havens of poverty, crime, oppression, and economic collapse.

Share

Democrat demands prison for those who don’t cooperate with proposed gun buyback

And people wonder why I call them fascists: A California Democratic Congressman has proposed a new federal gun buyback program that would also prosecute anyone who decides they don’t want to participate.

[Congressman Eric Swalwell]suggests the government should institute a buy-back program, which would take existing assault weapons out of possession. The congressman also advocates the prosecution of any individual who decides to keep their firearm. “Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed,” Swalwell writes. “This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

“Instead,” he continues, “we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.” Swalwell notes that law enforcement officials and shooting clubs would be exempt.

Throughout his op-ed, Swalwell never defines what he considers a “military-style semiautomatic assault weapon.” Instead, he classifies an assault weapon as a firearm that is capable of “spraying a crowd” with “lethal fire in seconds.”

I am also not surprised this guy is from fascist California, where increasingly it is becoming downright dangerous to dissent from the leftist Democratic Party agenda.

Share

New York to jail man for possessing a legal gun

Fascist New York: A Hawaiian man is going to jail for two years, simply because he mistakenly brought a legally purchased gun into New York City, locked safely in his car.

Officers interviewed Camp’s girlfriend who told them, out of spite, he says, about a weapon he had in his car. In a small compartment behind the seat of his ’85 Chevrolet El Camino, Camp stored a Hi-point .45 pistol he bought legally in Ohio for $140 and that he kept locked away in a safe. When the officers found the weapon, Camp was arrested and charged with a Class C Felony.

His girlfriend had a far-left stance on guns. She said it frightened her to have one in their apartment and so Camp kept it locked safely away in the car to appease her, he explained.

Even his former girlfriend didn’t realize the draconian nature of New York’s gun laws. “I’ve never used it to menace or threaten anyone, especially not her,” Camp said. “She even later told me she regretted turning me in to the police, saying she believed I would ‘just pay a big fine.’”

No matter. New York City does not recognize the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. You do not have the right to bear arms there, even though the threat of gun violence from criminals is far higher than most of the rest of the country.

Note the absurdity of this. New York’s draconian gun control laws were supposedly passed to prevent criminals from getting guns. Instead, they are being used to jail innocent citizens whose only reason for owning a gun is to protect themselves from those illegally armed criminals.

Share

Bi-partisan group of senators back bill to deny citizens their second, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendment rights

Fascists: A bi-partisan group of senators — Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota), Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin), Angus King (I-Maine), Bill Nelson (D-Florida), and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) — have introduced a bill that would deny any citizen the right to buy a gun if they happen to be put on the no-fly list by some Washington bureaucrat, thus denying them their second, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendment rights.

As noted at this link,

Watch lists are inexact tools for law enforcement, after all, not a way to adjudicate rights. Most of the names on the watch lists, and the reason those names appear on those lists, are known only to government officials. If you’re one of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people unlucky enough to be capriciously tagged by law enforcement, you can only extricate yourself after an expensive and byzantine process that is often beyond the reach of an average a law-abiding citizen. Which is almost surely the point. As far as we can tell, nearly 300,000 names aren’t even vaguely associated with potential terrorist organizations. Yet, in this proposed legislation, sponsored by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), senators demand that Americans ask for permission before practicing their constitutional rights.

Then there is the question of how we define a potential terrorist in the future? The listmakers won’t say. How about Democrats? As others have noted, liberals regularly accuse the National Rifle Association (and thus gun owners) of being complicit in terrorism. Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy has argued that Republican who fail to support bypassing due process “have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” Kathleen Rice, who sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, contends that Dana Loesch and “the NRA are domestic security threat” for practicing their First Amendment rights. Excuse me if I don’t trust these people to dictate whose rights should be protected. [emphasis mine]

More important, if the people on these watch lists are so dangerous, according to these senators, why are we simply denying them the right to buy a gun, without due process? Shouldn’t we round them up immediately and put them in concentration camps, just make sure they can’t do anyone any harm?

Heitkamp, Manchin, and Nelson, all face stiff challenges in the 2018 elections. I would not be surprised if they find themselves all out the door. Flake, who ran for the Senate based on his a budget-cutting record in the House, is nothing but a corrupt backstabber, and has thankfully said he is not running for re-election. That’s four out of these nine. I wonder what can be done about the other five.

I want everyone to read the highlighted text above very carefully. It documents how the left and Democrats are becoming very nonchalant about demanding the nullification of the Constitutional rights of anyone who disagrees with them. This is not to be taken lightly. They mean it. Give them a victory in an election and they will begin to do it.

Share

Trump: “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Link here. Trump, who’s roots remain that of a liberal Democrat, suddenly sees nothing wrong with abandoning the fifth amendment to the Bill of Rights if it will get him brownie points with the leftist mainstream media.

Yet, burning the Constitution to avoid the massacre in Florida was never necessary. All that had to happen was for Florida simply enforce the law properly.

School and law enforcement officials knew Cruz was a ticking time bomb. They did nothing because of a deliberate, willful, bragged-about policy to end the “school-to-prison pipeline.” This is the feature part of the story, not the bug part.

If Cruz had taken out full-page ads in the local newspapers, he could not have demonstrated more clearly that he was a dangerous psychotic. He assaulted students, cursed out teachers, kicked in classroom doors, started fist fights, threw chairs, threatened to kill other students, mutilated small animals, pulled a rifle on his mother, drank gasoline and cut himself, among other “red flags.” Over and over again, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School reported Cruz’s terrifying behavior to school administrators, including Kelvin Greenleaf, “security specialist,” and Peter Mahmood, head of JROTC. At least three students showed school administrators Cruz’s near-constant messages threatening to kill them — e.g., “I am going to enjoy seeing you down on the grass,” “Im going to watch ypu bleed,” “iam going to shoot you dead” — including one that came with a photo of Cruz’s guns. They warned school authorities that he was bringing weapons to school. They filed written reports.

Threatening to kill someone is a felony. In addition to locking Cruz away for a while, having a felony record would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.

All the school had to do was risk Cruz not going to college, and depriving Yale University of a Latino class member, by reporting a few of his felonies — and there would have been no mass shooting.

But Cruz was never arrested. He wasn’t referred to law enforcement. He wasn’t even expelled. Instead, Cruz was just moved around from school to school — six transfers in three years. But he was always sent back to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in order to mainstream him, so that he could get a good job someday! [emphasis in original]

The root causes for this mess have nothing to do with guns. Instead, the madness of Cruz was aided and abetted by insane liberal polices (created and pushed by the Obama administration) and instituted incompetently by liberal politicians, all of whom are named in the second link.

Right now, however, the liberal press and their Democratic allies are going to make a big push for gun control and burning the Bill of Rights as a major campaign stand for the 2018 elections. I am amazed by this, because I guarantee it will result in exactly the opposite of what they expect.

Share

Democrats in House introduce bill to ban semi-automatic weapons

More than 150 Democratic members of the House today sponsored a bill that will ban all semi-automatic weapons, including pistols and rifles.

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., announced Monday he is introducing the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018. More than 150 Democrats have signed on in support of the legislation, Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Fla., said. “Today I joined @RepCicilline and 150+ of my colleagues to introduce the assault weapons ban. It’s time for Congress to listen to the will of a majority of Americans and pass sensible legislation to get these weapons of war off our streets. #NeverAgain #MSDStrong,” Deutch tweeted.

The bill prohibits the “sale, transfer, production, and importation” of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Essentially, this bill would try to repeal the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. It will also require the confiscation of numerous weapons that have been available to the public for more than century, including John Browning’s classic 1911 pistol, which he invented in 1911 for the government but has been a best seller since.

The comments by Democrat Cicilline above also shows his complete hatred and ignorance of weapons. That they are now including pistols in their fake term of “assault weapons” illustrates this clearly.

Note too that the Democrats have previously introduced legislation that would have nullified the first amendment, as well as protested the protections included in the fifth amendment. That’s three out of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights that they don’t like. That’s the Bill of Rights, designed to protect ordinary citizens from tyranny and oppression and which is the fundamental hallmark of the American experiment in self-government.

Let me repeat this: The Democratic Party has now officially placed itself in opposition to one third of the Bill of Rights.

How can anyone by now doubt the fascist nature of the Democratic Party and its supporters?

Share

House panel approves concealed carry reciprocity for all 50 states

The House Judiciary committee yesterday approved a nationwide law that would require states to recognize the legality of concealed carry licenses from other states.

The legislation allows firearm owners with a concealed carry permit issued by their home state to carry the firearm into any other state (all allow some form of concealed carry, although many are highly restrictive). The gun owners wouldn’t have to reveal they are carrying a weapon, though the bill does require they be eligible to possess a firearm under federal law (which requires a background check), carry a valid photo identification and a concealed carry permit. Gun owners from states that don’t require a concealed carry permit will need to obtain some credential from their home state to take advantage of the new law’s provisions. What form that would take isn’t specified in the House bill.

The bill still has to pass both the House and the Senate. A similar bill in the Senate already has 38 co-sponsors.

The article is typical for the modern mainstream press. It spends a lot of time getting quotes from numerous anti-gun groups and Democratic politicians, but never highlights the numerous examples in recent years where entirely innocent individuals have had their lives ruined because they entered places like New Jersey, DC, and New York with a gun that was totally legal in their home states.

Share

Another critical look at new Republican gun control bill

The video below the fold outlines in detail, from a gun expert, why the law gun control law proposed by Republicans is “the worst piece of gun control legislation … in our lifetime,” as noted by the narrator on the second video at this link.

Basically, the law is so vague that almost anything can be defined as the newly outlawed “rate-enhancing device,” including semi-automatic guns themselves. The gun expert also explains that there are numerous ways to enhance the fire rate of a semi-automatic, some as simple as using the belt loop on your pants. Worse, the law includes no grandfather provisions, so depending on how Washington bureaucrats interpret it, it could immediately make millions of Americans felons, merely for possessing something they purchased legally.

This what we get from our Republicans in Congress. A few weeks ago they were pushing for eliminating the restrictions on suppressors (to protect the hearing of hunters) and passing nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry laws (so that innocent gun carriers would no longer become felons merely for carrying their guns accidently over state lines). Like a house of cards, as soon as the press screams at them, however, the Republican leadership folded, abandoning those proposals (when this is the time they should push them) and changed sides, instead proposing laws that will restrict our freedoms and our constitutional rights.

Watch the video below. It makes it very clear how badly conceived the law is. If you are in any of the districts of the Republicans who have co-signed this bill, get on the phone and tell them what you think.

One more thing: If the Democrats in Congress think this new push for gun control is going to help them win votes, they are out of their minds. Watch the passion of the speaker in the video below. Note his contempt for Democrats. Note also his contempt for the “turncoat” Republicans (as he calls them) for proposing this bad legislation. He is not alone. The election of Donald Trump and Roy Moore prove this. With this legislation that rage and anger is only growing, and spreading to more people.

As many have said, you want more Trump? This is how you get more Trump.
» Read more

Share

Language of bump stock ban could ban all semi-auto rifiles

We’re here to help you! The vague language of the Republican legislation to ban bump stocks actually could be interpreted by the courts as banning all semi-automatic rifles.

The legislation, which was drafted by Rep. Carlos Curbelo, a Florida Republican, never bans bump stocks by name. Instead, the proposal bans any person from possessing or making any part that could be used to increase the rate of fire in any semi-automatic rifle. The lead co-sponsor on the gun control bill is Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and U.S. Marines veteran who completed four tours of duty in Iraq.

“It shall be unlawful for any person … to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic rifle,” the bill states. At no point does the proposed legislation specify a base rate of fire against which any illegal increases would be judged, a potentially fatal flaw in the bill’s drafting. As a result, the proposal arguably institutes a federal ban on any and all parts that would allow the gun to fire at all, since the mere ability to fire a semi-automatic weapon by definition increases its rate of fire from zero.

The design of semi-automatic weapons uses the recoil of the weapon generated by the gas explosion in the chamber when a round is fired to automatically chamber a new round, and prepare the weapon to be fired again. Because of this, any parts used in that process would likely be subject to the federal ban proposed in the Curbelo/Moulton bill, since they serve to increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon. Gas tubes, gas blocks, buffer springs, magazines, charging handles, ejectors and extractors, and even triggers themselves could potentially be banned under the bipartisan bump stock ban language proposed by Curbelo and Moulton.

I am reminded of the old saying, “Marry in haste, regret in leisure.” This rush to pass any legislation here is misguided, foolish, and against the interests of everyone. It also once again demonstrates the servile stupidity of many Republicans in Congress, who seems always willing to bow to political pressure placed on them by the leftist press.

Share

Trump administration shuts down NIH anti-gun research

The NIH has quietly shelved all funding for gun research, most of which had been instigated under the Obama administration as a propaganda tool to promote gun control.

The article from Science is remarkable — coming from a mainstream academic source — in that it provides a fair description of the perspective of the NRA and gun-owners.

Note: Reader Kirk noted my error in originally crediting this article to Nature, when it truth it was Science that published it. Post corrected. Sorry!

Share

Democrats blame lack of gun control for knife and bomb attacks

You can’t make this stuff up. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) told reporters on Tuesday that the Islamic knife and bomb terrorist attacks this past weekend in Minnesota, New York, and New Jersey were the fault of Republicans for blocking new gun control legislation.

Nor was Durbin alone. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) joined him in blaming Republicans and the lack of new gun control rules for the terrorist attacks.

Share

Obama goes after gunsmiths

The constitution is such an inconvenient thing: A new Obama executive order has redefined the work of gunsmiths to define them as manufacturers so that they can be much more heavily regulated, and likely put out of business.

The president’s executive order, which Obama signed on July 22 — around the beginning of the Democratic National Convention — conveys to the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), which is primarily in charge of managing the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and establishing its rules, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

DDTC now names commercial gunsmiths as “manufacturers” for relatively simple tasks as threading a barrel or duplicating a small custom part for an older firearm.

The law would require gunsmiths to spend thousands to meet the regulations, and would likely put most out of business, or force them underground into a black market.

The worst part of this, beyond the fact that it is a naked attack on law-abiding citizens because they do work Obama and liberals hate, is that if this executive order stands, it will grant the federal government unlimited power to destroy almost anyone in blue collar work that they don’t like Repair a car, install a carpet, fix a home’s air conditioning system, replace some plumbing, and you suddenly can be declared a manufacturer that no longer can afford to be in business.

Posted from the south rim of the Grand Canyon.

Share

House Freedom Caucus opposes Republican gun control measure

At least someone in Washington wants to defend the Bill of Rights: The House Freedom Caucus has announced that it would oppose the effort by the Republican leadership to pass a gun control law that would allow the federal government to deny citizens their second amendment rights.

The effort will probably kill the Republican proposal, which would have allowed the federal government to block a gun sale to someone on the no-fly list for three days, during which the Attorney General would to go to court to prove that the individual is a suspected terrorist.

Gee, what’s wrong with that? Doesn’t the Attorney General as well as the courts always enforce the law fairly and objectively? Who could imagine them teaming up to squelch a citizen’s rights, merely because that citizen might have opinions these federal officials don’t like?

Share

RINOs in Senate team up with Democrats for gun control push

Senate moderate Republicans are teaming up with Democrats to propose another gun control measure, aimed at disarming Americans instead of fighting Islamic terrorism.

Senate Republicans are expected to bring a bipartisan gun control bill to a vote this week despite opposition to the measure from the National Rifle Association and other conservative groups. The measure, spearheaded by centrist GOP Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), would block people on two terrorist watchlists from buying guns.

Sources in both parties on Tuesday said the Collins legislation is gaining momentum — a sign that doing nothing to prevent terrorism suspects from obtaining guns is a problem for vulnerable Republicans in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shooting. While the NRA is opposed to the measure, Senate Majority LeaderMitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is more focused on protecting his vulnerable incumbents and keeping control of the chamber in November, according to Senate GOP sources. “He will not be dictated to,” one lawmaker said of the NRA’s efforts to pressure McConnell.

The Senate Democrat who launched last week’s filibuster on gun control depicted a vote on the Collins measure as a pivotal moment for the Senate, which on Monday rejected four other gun control bills. “I think you’re seeing in real time the vice grip of the NRA loosening in this place,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “This is a watershed moment whether this gets to the finish line or not. You have Republicans scrambling to try to find a way to remedy their no votes [Monday] night.”

Once again, the focus of these politicians is not on solving the problem, terrorism inspired or planned by Islam, but to attack and disarm the American public, the exact opposite of what needs to be done. When you are in a war, you don’t disarm, you arm yourself.

Share

Trump softens tone on gun restrictions

In a television interview today Donald Trump softened his position on the use of terrorist watch lists to deny Americans their second amendment rights under the Bill of Rights, aligning his position more closely to that of the National Rifle Association which endorsed him.

This whole kerfuffle illustrates once again the importance of surrounding Trump with trustworthy conservatives who can influence him. Trump is not trustworthy, but he will bend to the will of those who advise him, and he has made it clear that he wants the NRA’s advice.

Thus, it is crucially important to elect a lot of conservative Republicans this November. Such people in Congress, and only such people, can prevent the worst abuses coming from what will likely be a generally confused Trump administration, or a decidedly leftist Clinton one.

Posted from Washington, D.C.

Share

Trump affirms support for denying Americans their second amendment rights

Update on the November Democratic primary: Donald Trump today repeated his support for the idea of allowing the FBI or a bureaucrat in Washington to decide whether Americans will have the right to own or buy guns, essentially denying them their second amendment rights.

Donald Trump reaffirmed his stance on restricting individuals on the terror watch list from being able to purchase firearms, despite Republican objections. “We have to make sure that people that are terrorists or have even an inclination toward terrorism cannot buy weapons, guns,” Trump told ABC’s White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl in an interview that will air Sunday on “This Week.”. [emphasis mine]

So now, according to Trump it is even reasonable for the government to deny you your rights, based merely on what they think you think. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that idea, especially when such power is handed to government bureaucrats whose political bosses crave power above all else?

I must admit I have been toying with the idea of voting for Trump, because Hillary Clinton is going to be far worse. Trump however is doing his damndest to convince me that this would be a mistake, and a third party vote makes more sense, even if Gary Johnson has his own problems..

Share

Senate to vote Monday on four gun control bills

Call your senator! The Senate will take up four gun control bills on Monday, all useless in preventing the Orlando mass killing but all very useful in denying innocent Americans their second amendment rights.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., authored the terror watch list measure. It would allow federal investigators to block gun purchases by people who they are scrutinizing for possible links to terrorism. The Senate will also vote on an alternative to Feinstein, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, that would put in place a three-day delay for gun purchases by people on the terror watch list. Cornyn’s bill would require the federal government to prove in court that the purchaser should not own a weapon.

A third measure, sponsored by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., would require background checks at gun shows. Senators will also consider legislation sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, that aims to increase prosecutions of people who try to illegally purchase guns, and ensure those will mental illness can’t buy them.

The first and second are blatantly unconstitutional. The third is bull because background checks are already required at gun shows. And the third is both unconstitutional as well as an empty gesture accomplishing nothing. All four would have done nothing to prevent the Orlando murders, since the madman there had followed the law very carefully, was screened heavily, and was not even on a terrorist watch list.

And once again, the useless Republican quislings in Congress, instead of standing up for our rights, offer incremental compromises that serve to squelch our freedoms only a little. No wonder the pubic wants an outsider for President.

Speaking of outsiders, below the fold is Ted Cruz’s response today in Congress to the Democratic fascist push to deny us our right to keep and bear arms. No compromise on freedom from him.
» Read more

Share

Leftwing filmmaker Michael Moore demands the removal of every elected official who disagrees with him

Fascist: Leftwing filmmaker Michael Moore has called for the removal from office of any member of Congress who does not immediately bow down and support a bill that bans all assault weapons (whatever those might be):

“Any member of Congress who hasn’t announced support for a bill to ban all assault weapons by Friday should be removed from Congress,” the Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker tweeted Tuesday evening.

Moore might be calling for their defeat during an election, but I personally do not think so. The left has become increasingly intolerant and strident in recent years, more willing to openly oppress anyone who disagrees with them, and I think this describes precisely what Moore really wants to happen.

Share

Trump the gun control expert

Donald Trump said today that he will consider regulations that will allow the federal government to deny anyone their second amendment right should they be suspected of harboring evil thoughts.

Donald Trump says he’ll talk to the National Rifle Association about introducing new restrictions on guns for suspected terrorists at an upcoming meeting. Trump said Wednesday morning in a tweet: ‘I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.’

Earlier this week Trump hit presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over her support for an assault weapons ban and accused her of trying to to not only ban guns, but get rid of the Second Amendment. Clinton had also called for a block on firearms purchases for persons on the TSA’s no fly list and the FBI’s terror watch list.

Trump said last year after the Paris terrorist attack that he was in favor of congressional legislation that would do just that.

Remember, you get on a no-fly list or a terrorist watch list not because you actually did anything wrong and were convicted of it in a court of law, but because some federal government bureaucrat decides to put you on the list, based merely on their opinions or conclusions. Just imagine giving this power to our federal government: What could possibly go wrong?

Once again, it is imperative that Trump be surrounded by as many conservatives as possible. Hillary Clinton, a confirmed leftist, cannot be influenced on this and other political matters. Donald Trump, however, can be.

Update: This article, 6 Things To Know About Tying Gun Sales To A Watch List, is definitely worth reading, as it puts the entire issue into clear perspective. The calls by Democrats to deny second amendment rights to anyone on a government suspect list are nothing more than a fascist effort to gain power over free Americans.

Share

The liberal response to terrorism: Disarm the innocent!

They say that insanity is the process where you keep trying to do the same thing over and over again, even though it fails each time.

The liberal, leftwing response to the tragic and horrific mass killing by an insane Islamic terrorist, who found comfort and support from that religion for his murderous ideas, is thus a good illustration of insanity.

That’s just three four examples, but there will be more. [I have added the fourth because it is so expected and must be noted.] The simple fact is that the terrorist in Orlando had gotten his guns legally in a state that has numerous gun control laws specifically designed to prevent such a man from becoming armed. Those laws did nothing to protect innocent people from him.

One decent person armed in that nightclub, however, would have stopped him in his tracks. Unfortunately, according to Florida’s same gun control laws, that nightclub was also a gun free zone. Only criminals and terrorists were allowed to be armed, because they are the only ones who don’t care what the law says.

As Ted Cruz noted in his statement concerning the Orlando attack. “Our nation is at war.” And you can’t win a war by disarming yourself.

Share

Connecticut moves to ban 2nd amendment

Gun control fascists: Connecticut’s Democratic legislature has have passed a new law, which the Democratic governor has signed, allowing the government to confiscate the firearms of anyone placed under a temporary restraining order.

Temporary restraining orders are routinely granted with little or no examination of the underlying facts and based wholly on one-sided testimony.  Such a process is certainly appropriate in cases of domestic abuse, stalking, and the like.  But with the implementation of this new law the subject of the restraining order is punished without ever having his day in court.  In fact, they are punished without ever even being accused of, let alone convicted of, a crime.  The TRO does not require a crime to have been committed – just a feeling of danger.

Now, if you hate guns and you live in Connecticut, all you have to do is say that you feel threatened by someone, and the government can take that person’s guns. No trial, no evidence, no Constitutional rights. The feelings of a person trumps all!

Note the pattern. Almost all of the people trying to ban free speech and our Constitutional rights are leftists, be it either Democratic politicians, leftwing academics, or communist student groups. Yet, these same people are going to claim that no one should vote for Donald Trump, because he, in league with the Republicans, is going to take away our Constitutional rights.

Share

D.C. ignores 2nd amendment court order

The law is such an inconvenient thing: In denying a reporter a concealed carry permit, police officers told him that attorney general of D.C. had ordered them to ignore the court order requiring the city to issue permits.

The attorney general has since denied this illegal policy, but the reporter still doesn’t have his permit.

Share

New Jersey actor sentenced to 10 years for using a prop gun

The coming dark age: An actor now faces ten years in prison because he used a air gun that shoots harmless plastic pellets while shooting a movie in New Jersey.

Read the article. As the writer properly concludes, “no film production company of any size should ever do business in New Jersey.” In fact, when it comes to guns I would avoid this fascist state in any way possible.

Share

Lexington proposes gun confiscation

Fascists: The town of Lexington, Massachusetts, where the American Revolution was started by Minutemen armed with rifles, has proposed confiscating legally owned firearms from its citizens.

One such town meeting member, a Harvard professor named Robert Rotberg has taken it upon himself to enact, what he hopes will be “a movement against assault weapons that would capture the state and therefore maybe explode to reach the country.” He has seized upon the recent ban enacted in Highland Park, IL, and has modeled his own ban, almost copying the language verbatim. Filing it to the town meeting warrant as Article 34.

Among other things, Article 34 includes any firearm that is semi-automatic and can accept a magazine that will hold more than 10 rounds. It also includes any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The article also has a provision in which Lexington’s licensed gun owners who own firearms included in the ban would be forced to sell, render inoperable, or have them seized and destroyed by the police department

It doesn’t seem to occur to this Harvard professor that this ordinance would violate both the second amendment (“the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”) and the fifth amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”). But then, who cares about some old document called the Bill of Rights written by some white guys more than 200 years ago? We are Progressives! We know better!

Share

The rules to buy and sell guns

Want to know what the rules are for buying or selling guns in your state? Then go to this website to find out.

Very useful and easy to use. The site also illustrates that most of the fear-mongering about “loopholes” coming from Obama and the Democrats is simply wrong, or a lie.

Share

The Democratic Party’s disconnect from reality

Three stories today once again illustrate better than anything the leftwing Democratic Party’s profound disconnect from reality:

The first story is a new poll of the public’s opinions on the subject of gun control and the idea of banning “assault weapons” (whatever those might be). Not surprisingly, the public opposes future bans, and the trend lines show a continuing and nonstop shift away from gun control and towards gun rights that has been on-going since the 1990s.

A majority of Americans oppose banning assault weapons for the first time in more than 20 years of ABC News/Washington Post polls, with the public expressing vast doubt that the authorities can prevent “lone wolf” terrorist attacks and a substantial sense that armed citizens can help. Just 45 percent in this national survey favor an assault weapons ban, down 11 percentage points from an ABC/Post poll in 2013 and down from a peak of 80 percent in 1994. Fifty-three percent oppose such a ban, the most on record.

Indeed, while the division is a close one, Americans by 47-42 percent think that encouraging more people to carry guns legally is a better response to terrorism than enacting stricter gun control laws. Divisions across groups are vast, underscoring the nation’s gulf on gun issues.

The second story describes how, despite the above very broad and obvious poll numbers, ninety-one House Democrats today introduced a bill to ban the sale and manufacture of “assault weapons”. In announcing the bill, its lead sponsor, David Cicilline (D-Rhode Island), made this vague effort to define “assault weapon”:
» Read more

Share

The murder rate on U.S. islands with strict gun laws

A comparison of the murder rate on U.S. islands that have very strict gun control laws with the average U.S. murder rate finds that gun control has no effect on reducing violence, and in fact might help increase it.

The article finds that the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico have far more murders per person than the U.S., while Hawaii has less. The research does demonstrate, however, that the argument used by places like Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC (that the access to guns in nearby communities causes their gun laws to fail) is bogus. It doesn’t matter if guns are available nearby, as shown above. Instead, as the author correctly notes,

A major problem with trying to lower murder rates with gun laws aimed at restricting the entire population’s access to firearms is that only a tiny number of guns are needed to supply those involved in violent crime. From an economic perspective, it does not matter much if you attempt to fill a bucket from a small pond or an ocean; filling the bucket is easy in either case.

Share
1 2 3