Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Gun control debate’

A Few Reminders for Your Liberal Friends


 

Additional Politically INCORRECT Cartoons and More for Tuesday October 10, 2017


BRUTAL MEME Shows Obama How To Reduce Violent Crime Without Being A Gun Nazi


waving flagPublished on January 6, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://news.clashdaily.com/2016/01/brutal-meme-shows-obama-how-to-reduce-violent-crimes-without-being-a-gun-nazi

qmeme_1452091566267_601

Here’s a statistic that will blow BHO’s mind.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Piers Morgan debates state senator who created gun bill in his name (VIDEO)


http://www.guns.com/2014/01/29/piers-morgan-debates-state-senator-created-new-bill-name-video/

1/29/14 | by

Piers Morgan hosted the state senator who created a new bill called the “Piers Morgan Act.” (See Video below)

Oklahoma State Sen. Nathan Dahm recently filed a new bill that, if passed, would allow law-abiding Oklahomans to carry openly or concealed without a license.

Morgan was quick to tweet a challenge to Dahm and invited him to debate the issue on his show, “if you have the guts.” Dahm accepted and coolly listed off the many reasons why his new bill is not only a great idea, but also completely legal.

After confirming that Morgan does indeed agree the military should have “assault rifles,” Dahm goes on to explain that according to Title 44 of the Oklahoma statute, every able-bodied citizen between the ages of 18-69 falls under the umbrella of the state’s three-part militia, which includes the Oklahoma National Guard, Oklahoma State Guard and the unorganized militia.

Therefore, logic would dictate anyone who consents to the military having “assault rifles,” should also agree Oklahoma state residents that are able-bodied and between the ages of 18-69 should also be permitted to carry the same weapons.

However, Morgan doesn’t seem to agree.

Piers

Please watch this video and let its’ message sink in…and Remember it! Very, very impressive


“Guns are a lot like parachutes  If you need one and don’t have one, you’ll probably never need one again”

This is the best presentation on gun control yet. Even if you don’t like guns, watch this! Should be required viewing by both sides of the issue of gun control/legislation. Although this is a spoof (The Virtual President) this man knows the constitution.  Watch the faces on some Senators in the audience.

  http://www.youtube.com/embed/_T-F_zfoDqI?rel=0

Virtual President

Ann Coulter Letter


Mental health laws are trouble for Democrats

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/12/18/mental-health-laws-are-trouble-for-democrats/

Mental health laws are trouble for DemocratsBy: Ann Coulter  12/18/2013 05:01 PM

Instead of always taking incoming fire, how about Republicans start sending some back? It’s great that they stopped HillaryCare, but if they had actually fixed health care by forcing health insurance plans to be sold in a competitive free market, there would have been no opportunity for shyster Democrats to foist Obamacare on us.

It’s fantastic that we caught the Boston Marathon bombers, but why don’t Republicans fix an immigration system that brings foreign terrorists and mass murderers to our country? Let the Democrats explain why we couldn’t make room for a Danish surgeon because we needed another Chechnyan terrorist.

And it’s terrific that Republicans have managed to block sweeping gun bans after every mass shooting over the past few years — opposition to new gun restrictions has more than doubled since Newtown — but how about they actually do something to stop the next mass murder?

All these shootings are united by one clear thread: They all were committed by visibly crazy people, known to be nuts but not institutionalized.

Mental illness was blindingly clear in the cases of Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Maj. Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood), Jared Loughner (Arizona shopping mall), James Holmes (Colorado movie theater), and a dozen other mass shootings in the past few decades.

But in every instance, Democrats’ response was: Let’s ban high-capacity magazines! Let’s limit private gun sales! Let’s publish the names of everyone who owns a registered gun!

Mass shootings don’t correlate with any of these things. They correlate with not locking up crazy people. We’re not worried about school kids being systematically gunned down by angry husbands, gang members or antique gun collectors. We’re worried about a psychotic showing up in a public place and shooting everyone in sight.

There’s absolutely no point in making it more difficult to buy firearms at gun shows — unless gun dealers have no trouble getting files on the mentally ill. Until we do that, we’re wasting our time.

Fixating on guns after a crazy person commits mass murder is like draining the ocean to find a ring you dropped.

Liberals can take the position that crazy people living on the street and filling up our prisons and homeless shelters are a necessary evil that is a consequence of their idee fixe. But then, when one of their pet victims shoots up a movie theater, they don’t get to blame it on guns.

In every one of these mass shootings, there was someone in a position to say before the attack, “Trust me, this person is a psycho.” Try getting Jared Loughner or James Holmes through any mental illness hearing in which they’re required to speak. (Though both might end up being offered their own shows on MSNBC.)

If someone was brought back from the 1950s to today, he’d tell us: “I couldn’t help but notice that all the people who committed mass shootings were batsh*t crazy. Why were they not locked up or forced to take medication?”

We’d have to say, “Because some people — we call them ‘liberals’ — get a warm feeling of self-righteousness by defending the right of the deranged to crap in a shoebox, carefully label it and put it in a closet.”

Democrats absolutely will not address the one thing that was screaming out from all of the mass shootings: a crazy person committing the crime. We can’t medicate them and we can’t lock them up because the ACLU has handcuffed society’s ability to deal rationally with the mentally disturbed.

Not only will Democrats refuse to address the problem of the mentally ill on their own, but they will fight to the last ditch to protect any crazy person’s right not to take his medication.

At some point in the 1980s, not being “judgmental” became the highest form of virtue — although the left is plenty judgmental about things they don’t like, such as white males, smokers, Christianity, Wal-Mart, Fox News, talk radio and NASCAR.

Liberals are so determined not to stigmatize anybody that their solution is always to make all of society suffer instead:

– To avoid hurting Muslims’ feelings, everyone has to strip to his underwear at the airport.

– So no one feels excluded, we’re not allowed to say “Merry Christmas!”

– To avoid singling out gays, the government and media lied to Americans for a decade about the coming explosion of heterosexual AIDS. (We’re still waiting.)

– To stop people from noticing patterns, the media bend over backward to avoid telling us the race of dangerous criminals on the loose.

– To prevent hurt feelings, everybody gets an “A.”

And to avoid “stigmatizing” the mentally ill, society has to live with the occasional mass murder.

These anti-stigmatization rules don’t even help the people they claim to be protecting. But defending ridiculous rules that ruin things for everyone else makes liberals feel heroic.

Rather than constantly playing defense on gun rights, why don’t Republicans force Democrats into taking uncomfortable positions for once? Make them choose between ticking off the ACLU or ticking off soccer moms — as well as all of sane America. (Don’t kid yourself: The non-insane are still a potent voting bloc in this country.)

Republicans should say, “We owe it to the memory of these kids to unclog the regulations that prevent us from forcing psychotics to take their medication.”

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).

Pres. Obama “Fired Up” and Ready to Repeal Second Amendment


Written by  

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/16604-pres-obama-fired-up-and-ready-to-repeal-second-amendment

Pres. Obama "Fired Up" and Ready to Repeal Second Amendment

On behalf of your children, President Obama plans to take the guns you own and make it harder for you to buy them.

During a speech September 21 at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Phoenix Awards dinner, the president promised he was turning his attention back to his gun control agenda.

Referring to his failed efforts to irreparably infringe on the right to keep and bear arms begun after the massacre of 20 children and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama declared:

We fought a good fight earlier this year, but we came up short. And that means we’ve got to get back up and go back at it. Because as long as there are those who fight to make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun, then we’ve got to work as hard as possible for the sake of our children. We’ve got to be ones who are willing to do more work to make it harder.

There could hardly be a more receptive crowd, and the president’s remarks were met with cheers and applause.

Admitting that although there was so much to be done and the repeal of the Second Amendment would be a tall order, President Obama promised supporters that he was “still fired up.”

Given his penchant not only for ignoring the Constitution, but for zealously pursuing the permanent, piecemeal destruction of the roster of fundamental rights it protects, there is little doubt that this will be one promise that President Obama keeps.

Gun owners — the “dangerous people” being targeted by the president — have legitimate reasons to fear the federal government’s assault on the Second Amendment.

After the recent murders at the Navy Yard in D.C., White House spokesman Jay Carney reported that the president is committed to redoubling his efforts to enforce the score of executive orders he signed in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. “The president supports, as do an overwhelming majority of Americans, common-sense measures to reduce gun violence,” Carney said.

Prior to the shootings at the Navy Yard, Vice President Joe Biden announced that through “executive authority,” the president was closing two so-called loopholes in federal gun restrictions. First, corporations purchasing guns will be subject to a background check. Second, the re-importation of almost all surplus military weapons to private individuals will be banned.

His water carriers in Congress were no less anxious to use tragedy as a pretext for tyranny.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) lamented the “litany of massacres,” asking, “When will enough be enough? Congress must stop shirking its responsibility and resume a thoughtful debate on gun violence in this country. We must do more to stop this endless loss of life.”

Ironically, that is the same question Americans are asking themselves about the federal government and its daily demolition of the Bill of Rights.

While many Republicans have so far successfully resisted wholesale gun grabs, the compromises by conservatives are stacking up and that which was once a right is become little more than a privilege.

It is undeniable that the requirement that one recur to the government for permission to do something that the Constitution protects as an inherent right of all men is an outright obliteration of the bedrock liberties upon which this Republic was founded.

Remarkably, there are many Republicans and other self-described “pro Second Amendment” politicians who accede to the notion that the government should be permitted to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the owning, buying, selling, and trading of weapons.

True constitutionalists recognize such unconstitutional concessions for what they are: reductions of rights protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, they understand that if we are to remain a free people, we must enforce every provision of the Constitution on every issue without exception; that includes those rights that may be politically unpopular or misunderstood en masse.

The hour is late, but there is still time to ride to the defense of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Constitutionalists can let the president and their elected representatives in Washington know that they will hold them accountable for each and every attempt to curtail rights that are not theirs to dispose of.

Also, state lawmakers must be aware that voters will likewise hold their feet to the fire and demand that they unqualifiedly reject any effort by the federal government to enforce any act — be it congressional bill, executive order, or regulation — that exceeds the constitutional limits on its power.

As the applause faded at the banquet Saturday night, President Obama undoubtedly rode back to the White House determined to get rid of the guns and increase the surveillance of the “dangerous people” who currently own them.

Were he honest, however, President Obama would admit that the elimination of guns from the world is not the goal of the gun grabbers. Their hidden agenda, the one shared by the president and his fellow internationalists at the United Nations, is the consolidation of monopolistic control over firearms by the plutocrats on the Potomac and Turtle Bay.

Constitutionalists should now be on the lookout for the imminent announcement by Secretary of State John Kerry or by President Obama himself that the United States has signed the UN’s Arms Trade Treaty. That act will be a bellwether of the coming acceleration of the disarmament of the civilian population of the United States.

 Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels frequently nationwide speaking on topics of nullification, the NDAA, and the surveillance state.  He is the host of The New American Review radio show that is simulcast on Youtube every Monday. He can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: