Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Guns’

The Left Wants to Ban Guns Rather Than Deport Illegals!


Authored by Tami Jackson | on

deporting illegals a good start

Any American patriot who has a modicum of knowledge of United States history, of our founding documents — the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution — understands that firearms played a big part in our independence. The British — King George III and his agents in America — sought to seize the Colonials’ rifles, muskets, ball, and powder, and thereby control the settlers and further cripple them with taxes.

The Second Amendment was added in spite of some who protested: many in the New World thought it nonsensical to add a right to keep and bear arms. After all, they had recently secured their independence from the tyranny of King George due in large part to the colonials being armed. Surely no one would ever seek to disarm Americans?

The proponents of the Second won the day, thank goodness, because now the Progressives (aka Socialists) would love nothing more than to disarm the “lowly, unenlightened masses.”

The Left — Feinstein and Bloomberg and Pelosi et al — don’t care about the citizens’ health and well-being — they care about CONTROL! Period. 

Think of gun-free Chicago with its astronomical murder rate. Gun-grabbers hate that topic. Bring up The Windy City and you get a chorus of Lefties, fingers in ears, shouting, “LA LA LA I can’t HEAR you!!!”

Another Leftist stroke-inducing topic? Illegal alien criminality. Whoah boy! The radical left call them undocumented and paint a picture of peaceful, law-abiding (uh…didn’t the break the law to get here?) people who just want to be Americans. Except they don’t. These illegals don’t want to become Americans. They do NOT want to assimilate and learn English and be good citizens.

Hint: good citizens do not break the law.

What these illegals do want to do is become recipients of American healthcare, food, housing, schools, etc., all on the taxpayer dime. Oh you can be sure the Socialists call it free. But it is not. Might be free to those who sneak across our border then scurry quick-like to the nearest bleeding heart Democrat to sign up for free stuff. But the so-called “free stuff” is expensive to Americans.

Especially Americans like Kate Steinle. Or like Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver or Placer County Sheriff’s Detective Michael Davis Jr..

Kate was the daughter of Jim and Liz. Danny had a wife and two daughters. Michael Davis left behind a wife and four children.

Oliver and Davis’ killer, Luis Bracamontes, was “a Mexican citizen who had been deported repeatedly and had a felony drug and weapons history.”

Those are but three examples out of hundreds across this land.

Let’s get something straight: anyone who sneaks into the United States of America unlawfully is already a lawbreaker. If someone is in this country illegally, they should leave. Period.

So if the Lefties really want to protect Americans, they will get on board with building the wall and securing our border AND deporting illegal aliens.

Gloria Steinem and the Other Radical Feminists Have Zero Logic


Authored by Tami Jackson | on

Gloria Steinem Ban Guns

Radical feminists –some call them “feminazis” — worked hard over the last half century to do what Barry “I have a pen and phone” Obama sought to do in his two interminable terms: fundamentally transform (i.e. destroy) America. Gloria Steinem was the godmother of radical feminism and the sexual revolution.

As I wrote last December:

If Cosmopolitan magazine was the “bible” of free love, sex and orgasm for the single girl, Gloria Steinem was the prophetess of the sexual revolution.

Steinem founded Ms. magazine in 1969, which happily harmonized with Cosmo, further disseminating the dogma of free love and sex without the tedious tether of marriage.

The devotees of [Helen Gurley] Brown and Steinem–who were once college radicals burning bras, protesting the Vietnam War, rebelling against parental authority, and belittling the institution of marriage–are now ensconced in America’s halls of academia teaching malleable young minds.

We now know what happens when you teach a nation that people have no intrinsic value, that women are mere means to pleasure, that women should want unfettered sex whenever and however, and that humans in utero are disposable.  Good ole Gloria started her illustrious career as a Playboy Bunny in the New York City Playboy Club. Now there’s a sure-fire foot-in-the-door for a wannabe radical feminist.

Ms. Steinem made no secret of her abortion at age 22 and writes openly:

I didn’t begin my life as an active feminist until that day. It [abortion] is supposed to make us a bad person. But I must say, I never felt that. I used to sit and try and figure out how old the child would be, trying to make myself feel guilty. But I never could!

There you go.

Nothing like killing your own child to inspire one toward a brave and brazen job move!

Sexual Revolution Kick-Starter Steinem has been opposed to pretty much any and every conservative principle and belief. Although, she was married for a brief time from the age of 66 until her husband, David Bale (father of actor Christian Bale), died. That was one spark of normalcy in her otherwise abhorrent life.

Gloria has been pushing abortion for over 50 years. What a legacy. And her latest hobby? Banning guns!

Yessiree! Ms. Steinem really wants to save the children of America…uh…the ones that have actually survived the abortionists’ killing zones.

Anyone else aghast at this meme and it’s import?

Hmmm…

Let’s think about it. According to Feminist Gloria, killing a baby in the womb — or on its way out of the womb — is A-Okay. Killing anyone with a gun? Not so much.

Yea. You radical feminists really have a heart. Babies in America take note. And Ms. G? Hope you like really hot places because, barring a big-time come to Jesus, Paul on the road to Damascus moment, you have a one-way ticket to a very hot, very dark place.

#SorryNoIceWater

Iowa Legislators Move to Protect Gun Owners by Amending State Constitution


Reported By Chris Agee | March 27, 2018 at 1:43pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/iowa-legislators-move-to-protect-gun-owners-by-amending-state-constitution/

While last month’s school shooting in Florida led to new gun laws in that state and a renewed nationwide push for gun control, lawmakers in another state recently took the opposite approach.

According to the Des Moines Register, Iowa state legislators pushed through a resolution earlier this month that supporters hope will result in a ballot measure allowing citizens to vote for a “right to bear arms” to be added to the Iowa Constitution.

Lawmakers in the state House and Senate voiced their opinions on the resolution during periods of intense debate prior to votes by both chambers to advance the legislation.  According to the language included in the resolution, the state “affirms and recognizes” the constitutional right to bear arms.

In emphasizing the position that this right “shall not be infringed,” Iowa could become the fourth state to impose “strict scrutiny” on any and all effort to restrict gun ownership. That phrase caused much of the consternation among opponents of the measure, with several Democrats suggesting a new amendment could present additional hurdles in efforts to require permits or improve background checks.

A GOP backer in the Senate, however, said it is up to the voters to determine if the amendment goes too far.

“I trust the Iowa voter,” said state Sen. Brad Zaun. “They are going to tell us if they don’t like the language in front of us. They are going to tell us how important their Second Amendment rights are.”

As Democrat state Sen. Tony Bisignano said, the fear among some opponents is that supporters are looking at the Second Amendment in absolute terms and without critical context.

“Can you envision what arms will look like in 150 years?” he asked. “What we have today for arms is beyond their imagination.” 

One Democrat critic called his Republican colleagues “tone deaf” in pushing a resolution he said made it seem as though they were preparing for a “zombie apocalypse.”

State Sen. Matt McCoy said that lawmakers “haven’t even figured out how to secure our school buildings yet” and should not be pursuing constitutional amendments further expanding gun rights.

A Republican counterpart, however, seemed to link demographics to gun violence rather than access to firearms.

“In the big majority of counties around the United States, there are no murders, or maybe one in a given year,” said state Sen. Julian Garrett. “It is only in concentrated areas where we have these murders.” 

In the case multiple school shootings, however, including the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland County, killers have attacked in typically safe communities.

A joint resolution to advance the amendment process passed by a vote of 54 to 42 in the House before advancing to the Senate, where it passed 34 to 15.

Anti-Gunner Students Allowed To Edit US Paper, End Up Humiliating Themselves


Authored By Cillian Zeal | March 26, 2018 at 2:19pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/anti-gunner-students-paper/

Publications have editors. Real ones. As in, those whose experience is commensurate with the paper, magazine or website they’re working for. They’re not just there to make sure their staff don’t “wreite like” th1s. Their function is edit for style, to check facts, to see if arguments cohere. For this, they’re paid handsomely. (Well, by the standards of the industry, anyhow.)

I mention this all because on Friday, the U.S. edition of The Guardian allowed the staff of the Eagle Eye — the official newspaper of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, site of one of the most horrific acts of evil we’ve witnessed on school grounds in many a year — essentially to write and edit their own piece detailing their recommendations to “halt mass shootings.” 

It’s worth noting that the paper’s parent publication, the London Guardian, is easily the most liberal mainstream publication in Great Britain. That certainly explains why they would engage in an experiment like this.

And, common sense unfortunately dictated exactly how the experiment went. The piece — which I’m sure did very well in terms of readership, given the quasi-celebrity nature of the authors and the fact that it was published a day before the March for Our Lives — is a farrago of unresearched errors, logical fallacies and appeals to emotion so threadbare and maudlin you wish that a real editor would have saved them from themselves.

Here are a few “highlights” from the piece, titled “Our manifesto to fix America’s gun laws.”

“We have a unique platform not only as student journalists, but also as survivors of a mass shooting. We are firsthand witnesses to the kind of devastation that gross incompetence and political inaction can produce.” 

This is in the introduction and it sets the tone for what’s to come. I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: neither surviving a mass shooting nor being a student journalist makes you an expert on either firearms or public policy.

In the latter department, it shows in this very sentence: the movement they are supporting (and the manifesto they wrote) wishes to place more — not less — power in the hands of those whose gross incompetence and political inaction caused the Parkland shooting in the first place.

“Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds: Civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do. That’s a gross misuse of the second amendment. (sic) These weapons were designed for dealing death: not to animals or targets, but to other human beings. The fact that they can be bought by the public does not promote domestic tranquility. Rather, their availability puts us into the kind of danger faced by men and women trapped in war zones.

“This situation reflects a failure of our government. It must be corrected to ensure the safety of those guaranteed the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

This is the kind of misinformation from which an actual editor — one who works for The Guardian as opposed to the Eagle Eye — would have saved these individuals. Hunting rounds available to the general public already fire at higher velocity than some ammunition used in military rifles, because hunters often shoot at moving targets.

So, in fact, they were mostly designed for “dealing death” to animals. They’re often for varmint control. However, in a mass shooting situation, they would actually have little practical advantage over most other guns (but more about this later).

While there may be the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, there is also the right to bear arms (which “shall not be infringed upon”) in the Constitution. Nowhere in these documents, it must be noted, is the promotion of “domestic tranquility” (again: this kind of clubfooted phraseology is why you let professionals edit your work) guaranteed.

The most sadly laughable line, however, is the part about “a failure of our government.” The government has failed in so many ways in Parkland, but in ways where handing more power over to them would only exacerbate the problem. I know these students write and edit a newspaper; perhaps they should read a few, as well.

“Ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons: High-capacity magazines played a huge role in the shooting at our school. In only 10 minutes, 17 people were killed, and 17 others were injured. This is unacceptable.

“That’s why we believe that bump stocks, high-capacity magazines and similar accessories that simulate the effect of military-grade automatic weapons should be banned.

“In the 2017 shooting in Las Vegas, 58 people were killed and 851 others were injured. The gunman’s use of bump stocks enabled vast numbers of people to be hurt while gathered in one of the most iconic cities in America. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. That’s why action must be taken to take these accessories off the market.”

Let’s start here with the idea that bump stocks “simulate automatic weapons.” They allow weapons to fire more rapidly — and very inaccurately. In the case of Las Vegas, it was a unique situation where accuracy didn’t matter to the gunman because of the press of the crowd into which he was firing. In most mass shootings, bump stocks would be useless. They also do not “simulate the effect of military-grade automatic weapons.” 

As for the high-capacity magazines, this is again something that anyone familiar with guns would know to be useless. In a soft-target situation like a school where security either cannot or refuses to engage a shooter, a handgun with a regular magazine would be more than enough to inflict the kind of damage the shooter did, irrespective of the size of the magazine. And, if targets were hardened, the size of the magazine wouldn’t matter; a student would likely be either stopped or deterred before it made a significant difference.

Nowhere is evidence provided for any of their claims in this department, likely because none exists.

Oh, and speaking of security:

“Increase funding for school security: We believe that schools should be given sufficient funds for school security and resource officers to protect and secure the entire campus. As a school of over 3,000 students, teachers and faculty, Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school (sic) was only supplied funds to hire one on-campus armed resource officer by the state. 

“Without backup, this officer’s hesitation proved to be disastrous and allowed for the senseless deaths of people who were killed on the third floor of the 1200 building. Though this idea has been proposed in the past, these funds should not be appropriated from the already scarce funding for public education. Governments should find resources to secure the millions of children that attend public schools without taking away from the quality of education that is offered at these institutions.”

Given the scarce resources, you mean a plan like, I don’t know, training and arming already-extant faculty members at your institution to back up armed resource officers? Like the president proposed? Probably not, given that one of the soi disant leaders of Stoneman Douglas gun control posse (who, in fairness, is not an editorial member of the Eagle Eye) has called that idea stupid.”

“Allow the CDC to make recommendations for gun reform: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should be allowed to conduct research on the dangers of gun violence. The fact that they are currently prohibited from doing so undermines the first amendment.(sic) It also violates the rights of the American people.

“It is hypocritical to rally people to protect the second amendment, (sic) while remaining silent on the ways that blocking research violates one of our most basic constitutional freedoms.” 

At least someone from The Guardian should have had the basic kindness to explain how incoherent this would sound. The Centers for Disease Control is a government organization. If it is commissioned by the government to provide gun death research — and the omnibus bill authorizes that — it can conduct said research. It would then present its findings.

Nowhere is a taxpayer-funded organization granted the right to officially opine on any issue without legislation or regulations that prompt it, under the First Amendment. This would be patently absurd — and, by the way, since the CDC is currently headed up by an appointee of the Trump administration, I seriously doubt the editorial members of the Eagle Eye would exactly be in favor of the CDC somehow utilizing the First Amendment to remark on how they feel about the Second Amendment.

Other arguments that you may have heard before that are included in the piece are the proposal to raise the minimum age for firearm purchases from 18 to 21, greater sharing of mental health information between mental health care providers and law enforcement, the “gun show loophole” argument and calls for more stringent background checks.

No particularly new points were contributed to the discussion and none of the arguments were rendered more astutely than they have heretofore been.  There is no unique perspective brought to anything (aside from the idea that government agencies ought to have autonomous First Amendment rights to speak however they want), and certainly no particular view expressed in the article is unique to an individual who has survived a mass shooting.

Instead, it is an exploitative document (on the part of The Guardian) riddled with poor reasoning and nonexistent research (on the part of the students) which only exists in mass media circulation because of who wrote it.

You may feel that I am being inordinately cruel and unjust by attacking what these students have written. They are, after all, survivors of an unspeakable tragedy. They are also public figures and have made themselves so by their decision to lecture Americans on what constitutional and legal rights they should and should not have. The expectation that those they have chosen to lecture ought to sit down and stay silent ignore the fact that the media is using these teenagers as cultural satraps to weave a proxy narrative of their own. 

If the media is going to engage in such puppetry, the very least they could do is give these kids a decent editor.

MSM Won’t Push SC Mass Killing Story Because It’s So Destructive to Their Narrative


Reported By Ben Marquis | March 18, 2018 at 1:04pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/msm-sc-mass-killing-narrative/

Whenever there is a shooting in which three or more people are murdered, the mainstream media devotes ample coverage to the horrific crime in order to perpetuate the liberal agenda and push a narrative that guns are evil and must be strictly regulated, if not totally confiscated. However, when an equally heinous mass murder occurs with a weapon other than a firearm, the media stays stunningly silent, largely because wall-to-wall coverage of the incident does nothing to further the gun control narrative, and may even work against it by revealing how a gun in the hands of a victim could have changed the terrible outcome.

Such is the case with a recent mass murder in South Carolina, in which WCSC reported that 22-year-old Lovequawn Scott has been charged with four counts of murder for the deaths of four family members in their home. Astonishingly, police caught him attempting to flee the scene covered in blood when they arrived to check out a report from another concerned family member of a suspicious death.

The victims, who according to the county coroner all died of blunt force trauma, were identified as 72-year-old Joseph Manigault, 69-year-old Rose Manigault, 42-year-old Kenya Manigault and 15-year-old Faith Manigault. The weapon believed to be used to slaughter them was not an “assault rifle” or shotgun or even a handgun, but a pair of dumbbells, which the suspect allegedly used to beat the four members of his family to death.

Nor is this the first time that the quadruple murder suspect has been in trouble with the law, as WMBF reported that Scott, who had been enrolled at Coastal Carolina University, was arrested by campus police in 2017 and charged with trespassing, possession of marijuana, unlawful possession of a handgun and carrying a weapon on school property.

But Scott’s rap sheet didn’t begin there, either. WPDE reported in Nov. 2016 that Scott had been arrested on a golf course and charged with a litany of crimes after an altercation with police. In that incident, the burgeoning career criminal was charged with possession of Schedule IV drugs — Xanax pills, MDMA powder and marijuana — other drug offenses, four counts of receiving stolen goods, resisting arrest with a deadly weapon, breaking into a vehicle and the unlawful sale, delivery or possession of a handgun by a prohibited person.

When confronted by police in that incident, he attempted to flee the scene, then attempted to pull a loaded handgun on the arresting officer in the scuffle. He was later found to be in possession of stolen goods believed to have come from at least eight separate breaking and entering of vehicles.

With regard to the murders, Bearing Arms took note of the lack of national coverage of this tragic and brutal crime. Writer Tom Knighton pointed out that the media was most likely avoiding this story because it decisively runs counter to their standard anti-gun narrative.

Indeed, a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or handgun in the possession of any of the four victims — whether the elderly grandparents, the suspect’s aunt or his young niece — could have saved some or all of the victims from their horrific fate at the hands of the much stronger career criminal who bludgeoned them all to death at his leisure. Moreover, it proves that mass murder occurs whether or not the murder possesses or has access to a firearm.

Had the perpetrator of this atrocity used a gun in the murders, the media likely would have been all over it — though they probably would just as quickly have dropped it once the suspect’s lengthy rap sheet entered the conversation. However, since he didn’t use a gun and doesn’t fit the profile of an angry National Rifle Association member, they have avoided it at all costs.

CNN Forced to Admit Town Requiring Guns Has Stunning Crime Stats


Authored By Ben Marquis | March 7, 2018 at 3:16pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/cnn-admit-town-guns-crime-stats/

As has become typical, the debate over the Second Amendment and gun control reached a fever pitch following the recent mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Even as some liberals chastise gun owners and condescendingly declare, “Nobody wants to take away your guns,” other Democrats put forward legislation that would ban most common semi-automatic firearms and others even suggested Australia-style confiscation laws.

It should go without saying that the mainstream media is fully supportive of such proposals, chief among them CNN, as evidenced by its incessantly favorable coverage for the anti-gun side and staunch opposition to the point of denigration for those who advocate for the Second Amendment.

However, there is a small town in Georgia that went an entirely different route in regard to guns and gun ownership nearly four decades ago. Breitbart noted that even CNN had to admit that a law mandating gun ownership for those Georgia residents has had an effect on gun violence in the area.

That town would be Kennesaw, Georgia, and they passed a local ordinance into law in 1982 that required the head of every single household in their jurisdiction to keep a firearm in their home for the purpose of home defense. According to a piece from CNN, the town of about 33,000 people has suffered only one murder in the past six years, and has a crime rate of less than 2 percent. In other words, as economist John Lott has long noted, “More guns, less crime.”

The decidedly anti-gun media outlet made certain to mention that the law is generally unenforced by local police — meaning some households may not actually have the mandated firearm — and were also sure to point out that there could be other factors at play in regard to the exceptionally low crime rate aside from the mandatory gun ownership.

But even if the law isn’t strictly enforced, it undoubtedly has an effect, as Kennesaw Police Department Lt. Craig Graydon stated, “It was meant to be kind of a crime deterrent.”

Since the law has been around for so long, Kennesaw has received attention from all over the country — and even other nations around the world — in regard to the ordinance as various locales consider whether something similar might be right for their own communities.

“We get a lot of calls, conversation, and it seems to keep crime control, gun safety, things like that on the minds of many of the residents, because people are constantly talking about the gun law,” Lt. Graydon said. “So that’s been somewhat of a benefit to us.”

That appears to be how Mayor Derek Easterling views the law as well. “If you’re going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you’re the criminal — are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen” he said.

“The first thing that most people say when they meet us, you know as a community is ‘oh, it’s not what I expected,’” explained Easterling of the attention his town has received. “I don’t know what they expect of people who arm themselves with guns at home, or what they’re looking for, but really we’re not that.”

One resident of the town who has willingly obeyed the ordinance is Wayne Arnold. He told CNN that in addition to several handguns, he also keeps one of the incredibly common AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles chambered in .223 caliber handy, just in case.

“It gives me the ability to protect myself as opposed to being somewhere where you weren’t allowed to have a firearm or it was frowned upon,” Arnold said.

“People kind of get the image that it’s the Wild West, where everybody walks around with a firearm strapped to their side, and it’s not like that,” he added. “It’s strictly a home defense system type of deal. There’s no shootouts down the street.

University OKs Guns on Campus… 6 Months Later the Results Are Breathtaking


Authored By Randy DeSoto | March 5, 2018 at 10:51am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/university-oks-guns-campus-6-months-later-results-breathtaking/

Six months after adopting concealed carry of firearms on campus, the University of Kansas found that the crime rate dropped and there have been zero weapons violations. The Lawrence Journal-World reported that “crime decreased 13 percent, with 671 criminal offenses reported to KU police in 2017 compared to 770 incidents in 2016, according to a news release from the KU Office of Public Safety.”

The newspaper added there have been no weapons’ violations on campus in 2017, while there had been 14 reported since 2008 up to that point.

KU prepared for the addition of campus carry being implemented last July by adding three additional security officers to patrol busy areas on campus, as well as portable metal detectors.

Kansas state law only allows those who are 21 or older to concealed carry. On its website, the university notes that 59 percent of students are younger than 21.

Dudley Brown, president of the National Association of Gun Rights, believes there is a causal relationship between the drop in crime rate and permitting concealed carry on campus.

“There’s no doubt that allowing citizens — especially women — to carry the tools for self-defense makes criminals think twice,” he told The Western Journal.

Campus carry advocate Antonia Okafor shares that view, tweeting that KU is “showing the world how #campuscarry is done.”

According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, as of July 2017, eight states allow concealed carry weapons on college campuses. Meanwhile, 23 states leave the decision up to the individual universities, and 16 states outright ban guns on campuses.

The number of concealed carry permits in the United States rose significantly during the last decade, while the murder rate declined.

Citing statistics from the Crime Prevention Research Center, the National Rifle Association tweeted that between 2007 and 2015, the number of concealed carry permit holders increased by 215 percent, while the murder rate dropped 14 percent and the violent crime rate fell 21 percent.

Fox News reported that the number of concealed carry permit holders topped 15 million in 2017, which represented an increase of more than a million people: 14.5 million in July 2016 to 15.7 million in May 2017. That spike represented the largest increase in the number of concealed carry owners in the nation’s history.

Regarding the prevalence of privately owned firearms in the U.S., Daily Wire Editor in Chief Ben Shapiro tweeted a chart following the Las Vegas shooting last October showing that the murder rate has been trending down for decades in the U.S., despite gun ownership increasing significantly.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: