Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘gun control’

“Liking” of Fake Gun Photo on Instagram Gets 7th Grader Suspended

Reported By Andrew West | May 8, 2017


The anti-gun movement in America has gained unwieldy strength after 8 years of Barack Obama’s presidency, and the latest skirmish in the fight to normalize firearm enthusiasm comes to us from a 7th grade classroom.

Even though our nation’s Constitution explicitly allows Americans the right to bear arms, the political left of our nation has been at the forefront of the anti-gun cabal in America.  By preying on bleeding heart liberals with their ridiculously skewed assertions and anti-firearm media campaigns, democrats and their ilk have been able to create a dark stigma surrounding firearms in our nation.  After any gun-related accident or mental health-induced incident, the left is quick to jump onto their soapbox to push for tighter gun control legislation.

Now, after being emboldened by one of the country’s most liberal and forceful Presidents in modern history, the fight against firearms is reaching absurd new heights.

“The campaign against guns has reached such a fever pitch that an Ohio seventh-grader was suspended from school for 10 days for simply ‘liking’ a  photo of an airsoft gun on Instagram.

“Zachary Bowlin saw the photo, which was succinctly captioned, ‘Ready.’ He ‘liked’ the photo, prompting Edgewood Middle School to suspend him.

“The boy said, ‘I don’t think I did anything wrong. The] next morning, they called me down and, like, patted me down and checked me for weapons. Then, they told me I was getting expelled or suspended or whatever.’

“The school sent a note to Zachary’s parents stating the reason he was suspended was ‘liking a post on social media that indicated potential school violence.’ His father, Martin Bowlin, snapped, ‘I was livid. He never shared, he never commented, never made a threatening post … [he] just liked it.’ He added, ‘My wife called and said he’d been pulled in to the office, and he was being suspended because he liked a picture on Instagram that his friend posted of a weapon, of an airsoft gun. It was 10 days suspension with the possibility of expulsion. I’m like, “For liking a gun? Did he make a comment or threat or anything?” And it’s like, “No. He just liked a picture.” I’m like, “Well, this can’t happen.”‘”

This insane action, taken against a young man at such an impressionable age, is proof positive that the leftists of our nation are actively working to win the propaganda war against the Second Amendment.  With this vile and disturbing demonization taking place at an educational institution, the question must be asked, “has liberalism gone too far?”

The answer, for many, is certainly yes.


Andrew West is a Georgia-based political enthusiast and lover of liberty. When not writing, you can find Mr. West home brewing his own craft beer, perfecting his home-made hot sauce recipes, or playing guitar.

School Wants to Implement New Class That Will Have ALL The Liberals Crying — Do You LOVE This?

waving flagdisclaimerPosted by

| on April 12, 2017

URL of the original posting site:

Liberals say that one reason for banning firearms is because of the accidents that happen every year involving them. We know that some education can cut those numbers astronomically.

And one state is taking the steps to do just that.

A new piece of legislation introduced in North Carolina will give high school students one more class to take: firearms education.

House Bill 612, filed this week by Representative Jay Adams, would give the state room to develop a firearms education course and allow the class, which would include “firearms safety education as recommend by law enforcement agencies or a firearms association”, to be offered as an elective to high school students.

The course, which would be developed by the North Carolina Board of Education, would not allow live ammunition in the classroom and would also cover the history and mechanics of firearms with a firm emphasis on the importance of gun safety.

Bearing Arms

This class would have something for everyone. Each student likes a certain subject, this class would not only cover safety but also teach students about the math, history and science of guns.

That’s a a lot of subjects in one class. It should keep students pretty engaged.

The bill seems to be getting a lot of positive feedback.

“I think education, first and foremost, is essential, before actually obtaining a firearm,” Allen Shaw said.

“If they have the opportunity to buy, they should have the opportunity to be educated. We’ve got too many people out there right now that are wanting to buy guns that don’t have any background with them.”

“Gives the kids a chance to learn how to work them,” said Danny Davis.

“It would be a very beneficial course,” said Tres Cobb, a gun owner and full supporter of the bill.absolutely


Of course, this hasn’t come without criticism from individuals who feel the course would encourage students to become shooters…

“I don’t even see the point in that,” Jenny Rorie said“I don’t think they should, there’s enough violence going on without them doing that.”

“I think it would hurt and help. It’s kind of like a catch-22,” said Tanica Wilkerson.

“I think high school is a little early. I think some of those kids are not ready for that type of environment, to be exposed to something like that. I don’t feel like they’re mature enough.”

Under federal law, citizens under the age of 21 can’t purchase handguns, but 18 year-olds can purchase shotguns or rifles. These are the types of guns that would be part of the proposed high school course.

The bill says live ammunition won’t be allowed in class, but it doesn’t say whether guns can be present.

While adults argue over this bill, 6-year-old Evelyn had some of the best insight:

“If you see someone around you with a gun, you need to know how to handle it.”amen

Her parents did not give their opinion on the bill but did say teaching kids how to properly handle a firearm was an important lesson.

The bill has passed its first reading in the house. It’s now on its way to the House Committee on Education for debate. If passed, it will take effect at the start of the 2017-2018 school year.

Chicago Gun Violence So High It Is Skewing National Murder Figures

waving flagAuthored by AWR Hawkins / 21 Dec 2016

Breitbart News reported that the death toll in Chicago had already passed 730 for the year by December 6. And the Chicago Tribune reports that the number of murders in Chicago reached 755 by December 21. When these numbers are added to the murder figures of other cities, they raise the overall perception of violence considerably — particularly when it comes to the number of homicides.

According to The Washington Post, the Brennan Center of Justice expects “the homicide rate for the country’s 30 biggest cities… to go up by 14 percent this year.” But that increase does not tell the whole story; namely, that “the killings in Chicago account for an astounding 43.7 percent of this overall increase in [homicides].”

In other words, if year-end numbers do in fact show the anticipated “14 percent” jump in homicides nationally, the deaths in Chicago alone will account for nearly half of that increase.

This means Chicago’s failed gun control experiment is affecting us all by making murder numbers appear higher across the nation than they actually are. These elevated numbers give Democratic politicians an opportunity to claim concealed carry is not effective, to claim more intrusive government policies are necessary to keep us safe, regardless of which city or state we call home.

Baltimore has witnessed approximately 299 homicides year-to-date, and Washington D.C. has witnessed approximately 128. When combined with Chicago, the death numbers in these three Democrat-run, highly gun-controlled cities account for well over 50 percent of the murder spike that will be credited to America’s 30 largest cities.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of “Bullets with AWR Hawkins,” a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard builds image for bucking party

Gabbard builds image for bucking party / © Greg Nash

The Democratic lawmaker who met with President-elect Donald Trump on Monday is used to bucking her own party. A frequent presence on cable news, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), 35, has made a name for herself by criticizing the administration and her own party on foreign policy and national security.

She quit her post as a Democratic National Committee vice chair to act as a surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the insurgent candidate challenging Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary. She has blasted the Obama administration for refusing to say the words “radical Islam” and voted in favor of requiring FBI background checks for Iraqi and Syrian refugees.

She also declined to back the majority of House Democrats in co-sponsoring a gun control bill this summer, instead backing a compromise bill that others in her party said didn’t go far enough.

Like Trump and Sanders, she is a vocal opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. On Sunday, she participated in a rally at the Capitol against the agreement.

With that background, it’s no surprise that she’d catch the eye of Trump and his newly appointed White House adviser, Stephen Bannon.

“He loves Tulsi Gabbard. Loves her,” a source familiar with the Trump adviser’s thinking told The Hill. “She gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff.”

Gabbard was not one of the 169 Democrats in the House who signed a letter condemning Bannon’s appointment.

“Let me be clear, I will never allow partisanship to undermine our national security when the lives of countless people lay in the balance,” she said in a statement Monday released after the meeting with Trump. It’s not clear how strong a possibility it is that Gabbard could join a Trump administration.

News reports suggest she could be up for anything from U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to secretary of State.

It’s just as possible that the meeting was a bit of optics for Trump that shows his willingness to meet with a broad spectrum of people. Trump has also met recently with Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee who was a fierce critic during this year’s campaign.

“It does show a willingness to reach across the aisle, and on top of that, a different wing of the Democratic Party,” said Alex Ward, a defense expert at the Atlantic Council.

In her own statement about the meeting, Gabbard emphasized the need for people with different political views to talk to one another — particularly over national security issues such as the Syrian civil war.

“While the rules of political expediency would say I should have refused to meet with President-elect Trump, I never have and never will play politics with American and Syrian lives,” she said.

The Army National Guard major and Iraq veteran also said she wanted to impress on Trump the need to avoid being dragged into another war.

“I felt it important to take the opportunity to meet with the President-elect now before the drumbeats of war that neocons have been beating drag us into an escalation of the war to overthrow the Syrian government,” she said.

Gabbard has criticized the Obama administration for not being aggressive enough against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which the U.S. has been fighting since 2014. She also has been a staunch opponent of U.S. military action against the Syrian regime under President Bashar Assad, seeing it as a potential open-ended quagmire and a distraction from going after Islamic extremists.

In the meeting with Trump, Gabbard said she shared her “grave concerns that escalating the war in Syria by implementing a so-called no fly/safe zone would be disastrous for the Syrian people, our country, and the world.”

Trump has also voiced concern for getting involved in the Syrian civil war, saying it could lead to war with Russia and that the U.S. should focus on ISIS instead.

Outside observers said they could see a scenario where Gabbard could be a part of a Trump administration.

“Tulsi Gabbard has emerged as a somewhat prominent critic of the hawkish consensus,” said Cato Institute defense expert Benjamin Friedman.

He suggested she could be a better fit for Trump’s foreign policy than figures such as John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton has also been mentioned for various posts in a Trump administration.

Former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway praised Gabbard after the meeting, saying the lawmaker and Trump found they had a great deal in common during the meeting. She also praised Gabbard for bucking her own party.

Jonathan Swan contributed to this report, which was updated at 8:54 a.m.

This Is One Of The Biggest Pending SCOTUS Cases You Haven’t Heard Of

waving flagAuthored by Photo of Kevin Daley Kevin Daley, Legal Affairs Reporter / 08/23/2016

URL of the original posting site:

When Travis Beckles surrendered his sawed-off shotgun to a Miami detective, he almost certainly didn’t expect to instigate a chain of events that could lead to major changes in the way federal agencies operate.

When Beckles was taken into police custody in 2007, his girlfriend asked authorities to remove his gun from her residence; he directed officers to the weapon, concealed under his girlfriend’s mattress. He was later charged and convicted of one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm — Beckles had two prior felony drug convictions. Given these two convictions, the court determined that Beckles was a career offender. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (USSG), the set of rules which establish uniform sentencing practices across federal courts, instructed that his sentence should therefore be enhanced.

The court also ruled that Beckles’ possession of the shotgun constituted a “crime of violence,” which, per the USSG, also requires a sentence enhancement. The court ultimately sentenced Beckles to a 30-year prison term.

Beckles brought an appeal, Beckles v. U.S., in which he argued that his sentence was wrongly enhanced. He asserts that mere possession of a weapon does not constitute a “crime of violence,” and that his sentence enhancement should therefore be vacated. His appeal was rejected by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear his case in late June.

His argument was bolstered when the Supreme Court issued it’s ruling last year in Johnson v. U.S. In Johnson the Court found that the phrase “violent felony” — the functional equivalent of the phrase “crime of violence” — as it appears in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) was unconstitutionally vague. A seven justice majority led by the late Justice Antonin Scalia reasoned by a due process analysis that the phrase, referred to as the “residual clause,” is poorly defined and leads to arbitrary and capricious application, in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Beckles makes essentially the same argument as Johnson, arguing that the phrase “crime of violence” in the USSG is as vague as the residual clause of the ACCA, and should therefore be struck down (which, by extension, would vacate Beckles’ additional penalties.) His argument could have major consequences for the way federal agencies operate.

Strictly speaking, the USSG does not define possession of a sawed-off shotgun as a “crime of violence.” Instead, commentaries on the guidelines provided by the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) advise that possessing such a weapon should be considered a “crime of violence.” The government argues that those commentaries are subject to Auer deference, and that the Supreme Court must respect their interpretation of the law.

Auer deference is a legal doctrine which requires a court to defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules and regulations as long as its interpretation is not “erroneous” or “inconsistent with the regulation.” In Beckles, the government argues that the USSC commentaries are simply the agency’s interpretation of its own regulation (being the guidelines), and that the Court must defer to the USSC.

The Auer doctrine looms large in the administrative law scene. The doctrine is regularly invoked by agencies to protect their various activities. The U.S. Department of Labor invoked Auer deference when it announced that mortgage-loan officers were entitled to overtime. The Environmental Protection Agency did the same in requiring companies to obtain permits for water runoff from ditches running parallel to logging roads. It is difficult to overstate how much federal activity is protected by the Auer doctrine.

The Beckles case presents the Supreme Court the opportunity to revisit the Auer doctrine. Though it’s entirely possible the justices may sidestep the issue, opponents of Auer deference have gradually emerged on the high court in recent years. Scalia, the author of the Auer doctrine and a champion of judicial deference, made a thorough case for overturning the practice in 2013 in Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are also likely to share Scalia’s sympathies. (RELATED: Exclusive: Puerto Rico Is Full Of ‘Open Dumps’ Ripe For Spreading Zika, And EPA’s Ignoring Them)

Furthermore, as Andrew Hessick notes in the Yale Journal on Regulations, the case presents exactly the fact posture critics of agency deference often complain about. “The Commission issued a vague guideline through notice and comment and then set its meaning through an interpretation not subject to those procedures,” Hessick writes. “Further, although they must be the product of notice and comment, the sentencing guidelines are not subject to judicial review when they are promulgated.”

In other words, the fact pattern presented in this case is exactly the sort of thing critics of Auer deference complain about. Should the Supreme Court feel so bold, Travis Beckles’ sawed-off shotgun might end up dealing a double-barrel blast to federal agency power.

stupidity or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama LIES About Guns and Islamic Terrorism — Why Won’t the Media Say This?

waving flagWritten by Rob Morse on July 29, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

Only in America can a Socialist politician feel sure that his lies will go unquestioned by the news media. Too many Americans believe these lies, both from the President and our media. Those lies are getting Americans killed.

In 2009, President Barack Obama said, “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.” The evidence says otherwise.

I can understand missing a few incidents, but by November 4th of that year, Muslims had committed 1682 violent attacks. That wasn’t enough of a clue for President Obama. The next day, November, 5th, a Muslim officer in the US Army shot and killed 13 servicemen at Fort Hood, Texas while shouting “allahu akbar”. The officer had been under investigation as a security threat, but the investigation was closed because the officer was Muslim. The Obama administration called the attack “workplace violence.”

It wasn’t workplace violence. It was religious terrorism. US soldiers paid with their lives while Obama hid behind political correctness.

In January of 2015, two Muslim brothers walked into the office of a French humor magazine Charlie Hebdo. The two terrorists murdered 12 people and injured 11 more with guns they had obtained illegally. French citizens are not allowed to carry firearms for self-defense. The victims died unarmed and defenseless.

In June of that year, an avowed racist with a criminal history passed his FBI background check and bought a gun in South Carolina. He shot 9 people in a black church. Carolina law made the church a gun free zone, so the victims were disarmed. President Obama said, “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries.” I’ve already shown you evidence the president ignored. The president lied and the major media never exposed him.

In July of 2015, an Oregon college student passed several background checks and bought several rifles. He then asked his fellow students if they were Christians. He shot his victims in the head if they said, “Yes.” The attack occurred on a junior college campus that is another gun free zone. Not even the one security guard was armed.

Responding to the attack, President Obama said, “The United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws.” The president lied again. We have some 23 thousand firearms laws here in the US. The problem is not an absence of laws and regulations. Far from it. The problem is that murdering terrorists don’t, and won’t, obey gun laws. They never have. Not here in the US, and not anywhere else. That shouldn’t come as news to anyone. Let me show you more.Disarmed Citizenry

President Obama ignored the fact that criminals ignore gun laws. both in the United States and in other “advanced nations.” Our ignorance of European violence does not mean Europe is a safe place. There were 18 attacks by Muslim terrorists in Europe during the preceding 12 months. The terrorists used illegal weapons to kill and maim their disarmed victims. I mention the victims because most European citizens are denied the legal right to carry a firearm for self-defense. They are denied the right to keep a firearm accessible in their home. That is the same “gun control” that President Obama wants to import into the United States. Failure never stopped our President.

A mentally ill man got a gun and shot three innocent victims in a Louisiana movie Theater. As I mentioned, criminals and crazies don’t obey gun laws. President Obama said, “We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.” I’ve showed you the contrary facts that violence is both widespread and frequent. Why didn’t the media tell you that?

A few months later, 9 Muslim terrorists attacked three separate targets in and near Paris, France. The terrorists again stabbed, shot, tortured and bombed their way through innocent and unarmed victims. The terrorists killed 137 people and injured an additional 368. That terrorism is not confined to Europe. We have it here in the United States.

In San Bernardino, California, a Muslim immigrant couple murdered 14 people and wounded an additional 24 at a year-end Christmas party. The office Christmas party was held at a “gun-free zone” so the victims were legally disarmed. Terrorists don’t obey gun free zone signs… even in California. The death toll would have been much higher but the bombs the terrorists left behind failed to detonate.Criminals and Dictators

The terrorists had been screened several times by the FBI. They had no criminal history and bought their firearms legally in California. Background checks don’t stop terrorists, but that didn’t stop our president from proposing more of them.

President Obama said, “…we don’t know why they did it… We do not know their motivations… And we’re going to have to, I think, search ourselves as a society to make sure that we can take basic steps that would make it harder — not impossible, but harder — for individuals to get access to weapons.”Leftist Propagandist

Mister President, California gun laws already made it extremely hard for an honest civilian to buy a firearm. Disarming honest civilians hasn’t stopped terrorists at all

In Orlando, Florida, a Muslim terrorists killed 49 victims and injured an additional 50 people at the Pulse nightclub. The murderer called 911 to announced his allegiance to ISIS and his dedication to Allah. The club was another “gun free zone” so the victims were disarmed by Florida law.

The murderer was a security contractor for the TSA. He had been reported for suspicious behavior by colleagues at work and by gun store employees. They contacted the FBI… who did nothing. The murderer passed several security background checks.

President Obama said “…our politics have conspired to make it as easy as possible for a terrorist or just a disturbed individual like those in Aurora and Newtown to buy extraordinarily powerful weapons… and they can do so legally.” The murderer used a 22 caliber rifle and a 9mm handgun. Neither is considered to be a high powered cartridge. The rifle was not an AR, and had no parts in common with an AR rifle. Facts don’t matter when you can tell unchallenged lies.dangerously delisional

The president wasn’t done blaming firearms for the actions of terrorists. President Obama said, “We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.” Even the Washington Post called him a liar.

Within a month, Muslim terrorists would kill and injure hundreds more as they ran over families on a boardwalk in Nice, France and shot youngsters in a McDonald’s restaurant in Munich, Germany. Our President finds it easy to lie, but difficult to reach an obvious truth.

The American news media will never call President Obama a liar, but I will. I’ve shown you that he is. Why is this news to some?

About the author: Rob Morse

Rob Morse is a high tech geek who left California for Louisiana. He writes and podcasts about technology and society.
Hey Leftist fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

waving flagFoul Movement

Occupy House Floor, another democrat anti-gun movement raising a stink in order to deflect attention away from Obama’s failed terrorism policy.

House Democrats Protest / Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco.

More A.F. Branco cartoons at Patriot Update here.

A.F. Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies Hey Leftist Armed Criminals and Dictators Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: