Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Second Amendment’

Over 50 Shot, 7 Fatally, Since Thursday in de Blasio’s New York City


Reported by AWR HAWKINS | 

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/17/over-50-shot-7-fatally-since-thursday-in-de-blasios-new-york-city/

NEW YORK, NY – JULY 09: New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, his wife Chirlane McCray and Rev. Al Sharpton help paint a Black Lives Matter mural on Fifth Avenue directly in front of Trump Tower on July 9, 2020 in New York City. In a tweet, President Trump …David Dee Delgado/Getty

On Sunday night, ABC 7 reported the victims were the result of 50 separate shootings that occurred throughout the city “since Thursday.” AM NY reports 40 gun-related incidents since Friday night alone.

  • Breitbart News reported 12 shootings with 20 victims on Friday. One of the 20 victims, 28-year-old Deshawn Reid, died from his wounds. He was shot in front of his Flatbush apartment on Ocean Avenue Friday afternoon at 4 p.m.
  • Another of the weekend fatalities was off-duty NYC corrections officer John Jeff. ABC 7 reported that Jeff was killed with his own gun as he was leaving a party in Queens Saturday morning.

As the number of dead and wounded in NYC were calculated Sunday night, President Trump tweeted, saying, Law and Order. If [NYC Mayor de Blasio] can’t do it, we will!” Trump has also talked of sending federal troops to other Democrat-controlled cities where gun violence is raging out of control. His offers to do so in Chicago were rejected by Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D), who rejected the offer, choosing instead to push for more gun control.

On July 16, 2020, Breitbart News reported that Lightfoot responded to Trump’s offer of federal help by suggesting the president would secure more gun control if he really wanted to do something for Chicago. The Chicago Tribune reported her saying, “If the president was really committed to helping us deal with our violence, he would do some easy things. What he would push for is universal background checks, he would push for an assault weapons ban, he would push to make sure that people who are banned from getting on airplanes can’t get guns.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange

Multiple Officers Shot in Texas, Suspect Barricaded in Home


Reported by AWR HAWKINS | 1

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/16/multiple-officers-shot-texas-suspect-barricaded-home/

police car / Getty Images

UPDATE: CBS Austin published a statement in which Gov. Greg Abbott (R) addressed the shooting of the Cedar Park officers:

Our hearts are with the police officers who were injured while protecting the Cedar Park community this afternoon. We must never take for granted the service and sacrifice of our law enforcement officers, and the State of Texas stands ready to provide the support and resources needed to bring justice to those involved. I ask that all Texans join Cecilia and me in prayer for the these officers, and for the safety of all law enforcement officers across the state.

KHOU reported that the suspect who shot the officers is barricaded in a home off of Natalie Cove.

The Austin American-Statesman quoted an anonymous source saying three officers were shot.

Police are asking residents to “avoid Bagdad Road between Osage and New Hope.”

KVUE reported that the officers’ injuries appear to be non-life-threatening.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

TWO ARTICLES; SAME PROBLEM: Over 30 Shot, 10 Killed, as Violence Surges in de Blasio’s NYC and Report: 59 Shot, 3 Killed, over Weekend in Mayor Lightfoot’s Chicago


Reported by AWR HAWKINS | 

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2020/07/27/over-30-shot-10-killed-violence-surges-de-blasios-nyc/

NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 14: New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio speaks at a food shelf organized by The Campaign Against Hunger in Bed Stuy, Brooklyn on April 14, 2020 in New York City. Before touring the facility de Blasio praised the work of food shelves and community …
Scott Heins/Getty Images

Over 30 people were shot, with ten killed, over the weekend as violence continues to surge in Mayor Bill de Blasio’s (D) New York City. One of the fatal shooting victims was a 16-year-old boy who sustained a bullet wound to the head “in the Cypress Hills section of Brooklyn” on Sunday, Fox 5 reported. The 16-year-old was one of seven people who were shot and killed on Sunday alone.

De Blasio reacted to the 16-year-old’s death saying, “This is heartbreaking. His life was just beginning. Sending my thoughts and prayers to the families of these boys. No parent should ever have to bury a child,” NBC 4 New York reported.

A “Stop the Violence” march occurred in Brooklyn the day before the seven fatalies occurred.

NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea spoke with NY1 on Monday morning and acknowledged that all the anti-violence efforts have fallen short of actually curtailing it at this point.

“When we have a day with 15 shootings in New York City, that’s not a success. There’s no other way to put that. There are still some challenges throughout New York City with repeat gun offenders, with the gang situation, with large groups on the street and how to tackle them in terms of alcohol and things of that nature,” he said.

Breitbart News reported that a one-year-old was shot to death while sitting in a stroller in de Blasio’s NYC earlier this month. In June, Breitbart News reported a video of a father fatally shot while walking his six-year-old daughter across the street in the city.

WARNING: GRAPHIC VIOLENCE

On July 14, 2020, Breitbart News reported that de Blasio blamed NYC’s surging violence on guns.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.


Reported by AWR HAWKINS | 

URL of the originating web site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/07/27/report-59-shot-3-killed-over-weekend-in-mayor-lightfoots-chicago/

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - APRIL 02: Chicago mayoral candidate Lori Lightfoot greets commuters at an L station in Logan Square on April 02, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. Voters in Chicago go to the polls today to select a new mayor in a runoff election. Lightfoot is running against Cook County Board …
Scott Olson/Getty Images

Fifty-nine people were shot, three fatally, over the weekend in Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s (D) Chicago. Late Sunday night NBC 5 reported at least 49 people had been shot, two fatally. By Monday morning the Chicago Sun-Times reported nearly 60 shot with three fatalities.

NBC 5 noted that weekend shootings began Friday with a non-fatal incident just after 5 pm, when two individuals were shot while standing in a gas station parking lot “in the 800 block of West 59th Street.” Less than 30 minutes later a 19-year-old was shot and left in serious condition while sitting on a porch on West Cullerton. The violence continued from there. The Sun-Times reports the weekend’s last shooting–a fatal one–occurred just before 1:30 a.m. Monday morning.

On Tuesday, Mayor Lightfoot acknowledged President Trump would be sending in federal agents to help curtail the gun violence that has surged in Chicago throughout this year. But the Chicago Tribune reported Lightfoot made clear she will be ready to use the courts to stop the use of federal agents if she believes the Trump administration overreaches.

Lightfoot said, “I don’t put anything past this administration, which is why we will continue to be diligent and why we will continue to be ready. If we need to stop them and use the courts to do so, we are ready to do that.”

When Trump spoke out against the violence ravaging Democrat-controlled cities in June, Lightfoot reacted by stating she does not “need leadership lessons” from the president.

On July 16, 2020, Breitbart News reported Lightfoot responded to Trump’s idea of the federal government stepping in by calling for more gun control. Two of the central controls she demanded were universal background checks and an “assault weapons” ban. She did not mention the Chicago-area already has an “assault weapons” ban, thanks to a Cook County prohibition.

Moreover, Chicago and the entire state of Illinois already have a licensing process for would-be gun owners that includes a background check.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkinsa weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Black Florida Sheriff Vows To Deputize Gun Owners If Rioters Come to His County


Reported By Elise Ehrhard | Published July 2, 2020 at 12:50pm

Sheriff Darryl Daniels of Clay County, Florida, released a 3-minute video Tuesday declaring he will deputize the county’s gun owners if protesters decide to visit the jurisdiction southwest of Jacksonville and turn into rioters.

As he stood with 18 deputies behind him, Daniels declared, “Don’t fall victim to subjecting yourself to this conversation that law enforcement is bad, that law enforcement is the enemy of the citizens that we’re sworn to protect and serve.

“We swore an oath, and in that oath, we swore to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and the government, and that we’re duly qualified under the state’s Constitution to hold office. That is for me as a sheriff and these men and women as deputy sheriffs. And we end that with, ‘So help me God.’

“But God is absent from the media’s message or Black Lives Matter or any other group out there that’s making themselves a spectacle disrupting what we know to be our quality of life in this country.”

Daniels, Clay County’s first black sheriff, spoke about the breakdown of law-and-order occurring in many parts of the country in recent weeks.

“Lawlessness, that’s unacceptable in this country. Lawlessness, that’s unacceptable in Clay County,” he said. “And if you threaten to come to Clay County and think for one second that we’ll bend our backs for you, you’re sadly mistaken. …

“Tearing up Clay County, that’s not going to be acceptable. And if we can’t handle you, you know what I’ll do? I will exercise the power and authority of the sheriff and I’ll make special deputies of every lawful gun owner in this county. And I’ll deputize them for this one purpose: to stand in the gap between lawlessness and civility.

“That’s what we’re sworn to do, and that’s what we’re going to do. You’ve been warned.”

Daniels is himself under investigation over allegations that an affair with a fellow officer led to her wrongful arrest. Since he is battling a scandal in the midst of a tough re-election campaign, this video could be Daniels’ attempt to win over voters by appealing to the need for law-and-order and the right to bear arms. If so, the sheriff is correctly “reading the room,” as they say. Over the past few months, gun sales have surged across the United States.

“During the last week of May, firearm sales were up 78% over 2019, according to an analysis by the small business software firm Womply,” USA Today reported last month.

Americans have seen police departments become overwhelmed during protests and riots across the country. In Seattle’s “Capitol Hill Organized Protest” zone, six city blocks were taken over and a police station was abandoned. In Minneapolis, a precinct was burned to the ground.

The National Guard has been called into multiple places. All the while, exhausted police departments are being defunded by Democratic mayors and city councils.

Right now, Americans can feel grateful for our Second Amendment rights. In some chaotic areas, they are the one thing standing between us and the violent left-wing mob.

Daniels acknowledged the protesters’ rights during his speech.

“Yes, we’ll protect your constitutional rights as long as you remain under the umbrella of peaceful protest or peaceful march. But the second that you step out from up under the protection of the Constitution, we’ll be waiting on you and we’ll give you everything you want,” he said.

Daniels is not the first sheriff to suggest deputizing law-abiding gun owners in his county. Last year, Scott Jenkins, the sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia, vowed to deputize thousands in his county if the state’s Democratic leaders passed extreme gun control measures. His county’s Board of Supervisors had unanimously agreed to declare the county a Second Amendment Constitutional County.

Law-abiding Americans have been viciously attacked during the violence sweeping the country. More and more of them could very well be open to being deputized so they can help protect their communities.

The Clay County sheriff may be facing an investigation, but his video message is on point.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

As COVID Lockdowns Continue To Threaten Freedoms, April Gun Sales Surge


Reported By Johnathan Jones | Published May 5, 2020 at 3:42pm

URL of the originating web site: https://www.westernjournal.com/covid-lockdowns-continue-threaten-freedoms-april-gun-sales-surge/

As local and state governments across the country have restricted the liberties of their citizens since the coronavirus began its spread, many Americans have found themselves quietly exercising their rights by buying guns in record numbers. Purchases of firearms continued to break records last month during the nation’s health and economic crises. Gun sales, which reached all-time highs in March, continued their surge in April amid uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus and the government’s response to it.

Americans bought almost 1.8 million guns in April, according to estimates from Small Arms Analytics, which tracks the sales of firearms. While fewer people bought guns in April than they did in March, when 2.5 million firearms were purchased, the number of arms purchased in April was an increase of 71 percent compared to sales estimates for the same timeframe in 2019. Small Arms Analytics noted that more handguns have been sold than rifles or shotguns.

Additionally, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System reported it conducted more than 2.9 million firearm background checks in April.

NICS ran more than 3.7 million checks in the month of March.

The news is certainly welcome for the gun industry, but it should be celebrated that so many Americans are exercising their Constitutional rights during such an unprecedented time in the country’s history. Governments across the country have released potentially dangerous criminals back onto the streets as a way to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus in jails and prisons. With the influx of so many possibly dangerous people now among us, people are reminded that they are the first responders to emergent situations, and are taking steps to ensure they can protect themselves and their families.

Far-left politicians, such as former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, have also promised to go after Americans’ firearms if elected in November, which could be contributing to the spike in sales and background checks. But whether the increase in sales is due to fears of government overreach, talk of gun control or a reaction to other factors, the country’s current predicament is evidence of just how essential the Second Amendment is, and Americans are recognizing that.

Last month, the proprietor of a gun store and shooting range in deep blue Southern California described the unprecedented demand for firearms in Orange County. Gregg Bouslog, the proprietor of On-Target Indoor Shooting Range in Laguna Niguel, explained his shock at the influx in gun sales.

“As the owner of an indoor shooting range and gun store here in California these past 14 years we have never experienced such a huge demand for firearms and ammunition — even higher than the famous Obama rush of 2012/2013,” Bouslog told Red State.

Bouslog added he believed a great number of his new customers were first-time gun buyers.

While toilet paper shortages grabbed headlines in the early weeks of the crisis, and others warn of potential meat shortages coming, the one industry having the most difficulty staying ahead of demand is the gun industry. In the last month, I have personally visited multiple gun retailers, multiple times, seeking to purchase ammunition and to browse for firearms. In what is both inspiring and frustrating, I have found the shelves and walls of gun stores in Oklahoma to be mostly barren, as sellers attempt to keep up with demand.

As the firearms industry is considered essential by the Trump administration and the Department of Homeland Security, according to the NRA, gun sellers are mostly open for business, and some are having a difficult time keeping their inventory replenished — and there is something significant to be taken from that. Americans are sending a clear message: Constitutional liberties will not be suspended or surrendered in the face of a national emergency or by government decree, and people are taking measures to protect themselves from all potential threats to their rights.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Autoworker Threatened by Biden Unveils Hilarious Custom ‘AR-14’


Reported By C. Douglas Golden | Published March 16, 2020 at 8:59am

Michigan union millwright Jerry Wayne became a viral superstar when he engaged in a confrontation with former Vice President Joe Biden over the Second Amendment. To mark the life event, he decided on a memento, as so many of us do. He decided on a rifle — namely, an “AR-14.”

Those of you who remember the confrontation — it feels so long ago, given what’s happened with the coronavirus in the interim — will remember the fact that Biden forgot the name of the popular AR-15 firearm while telling him that he didn’t have a right to own one (or that he needed “100 rounds”). He also apparently forgot the fact that cameras were on him, calling the man a “horse’s a–” and “full of s—,” telling him that he’d take him “outside.” Presumably, that wasn’t so they could socially distance.

Here’s the video, which contains all of the unbleeped language. Viewer discretion is advised:

And here it is at floor level at the Detroit auto plant, just in case you needed a bit more of Joe Biden’s meltdowns:

And now, the AR-14 is a real thing — and Wayne is the star of a National Rifle Association ad. Again, bad language, viewer discretion is advised.

The gun, as you can see, has “AR-14” and “You’re full of s—!” etched onto the side, along with Joe Biden’s angry visage.

Wayne said he “got this the day after I talked to Joe. I’m sure that’s not the result he was going for.”

He also noted Biden lied when he said he didn’t say he was going to take away people’s firearms when he was with former presidential candidate and noted white privilege archetype Beto O’Rourke. O’Rourke, who was famous for his declaration that “hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” recently endorsed Biden, and Biden seemed to reciprocate: “You’re gonna take care of the gun problem with me,” Biden said in a March 2 appearance with O’Rourke in Dallas.

In the NRA video, Biden is also seen on CNN talking about how he would take away so-called “assault weapons.”

“The fact of the matter is, they should be illegal,” Biden said. “Period.”

“Americans should be able to ask candidates seeking the highest office what’s going to happen to their rights as they vote them into office,” Wayne said in the video.

“Joe Biden can call me all the names he wants, but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s on video promising to have Beto O’Rourke lead the effort on gun confiscation.”

“I am sick and tired of having to defend the fact that we need guns to defend our homes and hunt wildlife,” Wayne added.

“I don’t need an excuse to have 100 rounds. I’ve got the Constitution of the United States.”

The key question Wayne asked, however, might have been this: “Why is it that the people who want to take away our guns know absolutely nothing about them?”

Yes, why? Why is this always the same state of affairs? Not only was Joe Biden one digit short on the name of the rifle he wants to ban, he apparently thought it was already banned. Whatever the case, it was obvious Biden wasn’t on terra firma when it came to firearms.

And yet, he feels perfectly happy telling us what laws he’s going to pass regarding them.

Jerry Wayne’s confrontation with Biden may have gotten lost in more pressing things in the intervening week, but one hopes when COVID-19 is sorted out, we won’t have forgotten it.

Wayne certainly won’t — he’ll be able to look at the quote every time he goes to the range.

ABOUT THE REPORTER: 

TX Lt. Gov. Praises Armed Parishioners, Calls Them ‘Immediate Responders’


Reported by AWR Hawkins | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/30/tx-lt-gov-praises-armed-parishioners-calls-them-immediate-responders/

SANTA FE, TX – MAY 18: (L-R) Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick speak during a press conference about the shooting incident at Santa Fe High School May 18, 2018 in Santa Fe, Texas. At least 10 people were killed when a … Bob Levey/Getty

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) praised the reaction of armed parishioners during the White Settlement church attack, referring to them as “immediate responders.”

Breitbart News reported a man opened fire in the church Sunday morning, only to be shot and killed when a good guy with a gun returned fire. Fox News reports that a second parishioner who serves on the church security team shot the attacker as well.

The Dallas Morning News quoted Lt. Gov. Patrick saying:

The immediate responder is the most important. The citizen responder. Because even though the chief’s brave officers were here in less than a minute … by the time they got here, the shooting was over. And that always happens, that over 50 percent of shootings, our first responders, it’s usually over when they get there, no matter how hard they try.

Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed bills allowing law-abiding citizens to be armed in churches following the heinous November 5, 2017, attack in Sutherland Springs, Texas.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Hero Jack Wilson on Texas Church Shooting: ‘I Feel like I Killed Evil’


Reported by AWR Hawkins | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/30/hero-jack-wilson-on-texas-church-shooting-i-feel-like-i-killed-evil/

Jack Wilson ? Jack Wilson/Facebook

The man who shot and killed the White Settlement, Texas, church shooter on December 29, 2019, says, “I feel like I killed evil.”

CBS DFW identifies the Texas church hero as Jack Wilson, a gentleman who is both a member of the church security team and a candidate for Hood County commissioner.

He made clear that he does not consider himself a hero:

After the incident was over, Wilson used a Facebook post to describe his feelings:

I just want to thank all who have sent their prayers and comments on the events of today. The events at West Freeway Church of Christ put me in a position that I would hope no one would have to be in, but evil exists and I had to take out an active shooter in church.

“I am very sad in the loss of two dear friends and brothers in CHRIST, but evil does exist in this world and I and other members are not going to allow evil to succeed,” he added. “Please pray for all the members and their families in this time. Thank you for your prayers and understanding.”

NBC News reports that Wilson owns a gun range, which is where he trained for a moment like the one that arose Sunday at church.

When asked how he is dealing with killing another man, Wilson said, “I don’t feel like I killed a human, I killed an evil and that’s how I’m coping with the situation.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

TX Pastor Thanks Government for Allowing Armed Parishioners


Reported by AWR Hawkins | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/30/tx-pastor-thanks-government-for-allowing-armed-parishioners/

WHITE SETTLEMENT, TX – DECEMBER 29: Authorities work the scene after a shooting took place during services at West Freeway Church of Christ on December 29, 2019 in White Settlement, Texas. The gunman was killed by armed members of the church after he opened fire during Sunday services. According to … Stewart F. House/Getty

Texas pastor Britt Farmer praised law enforcement for their rapid response to his church Sunday and thanked government for allowing parishioners to be armed for self-defense.

Farmer is the pastor at West Freeway Church of Christ, the site of the December 29, 2019, attack wherein armed parishioners took out a gunman almost immediately after he fired a round.

ABC News aired video of Farmer praising both the response and “kindness” shown by law enforcement.

He then shifted his attention to armed congregants, saying, “We lost two great men today, but it could have been a lot worse. And I am thankful that our government has allowed us the opportunity to protect ourselves.”

Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed legislation allowing parishioners to be armed following the November 5. 2017, Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Report: Over 90 Virginia Counties, Municipalities Declared 2nd Amendment Sanctuaries


Written by AWR Hawkins | 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/15/report-over-90-virginia-counties-municipalities-declared-2a-sanctuaries/

Rifles hang on the wall for sale at Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly, Virginia, on October 6, 2017. / AFP PHOTO / JIM WATSON (Photo credit should read JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images)

A report from WDBJ7 shows that more than 90 Second Amendment sanctuary declarations have been made by counties and municipalities in Virginia.

WDBJ7 reports that Rockingham County was one of the most recent sanctuary declarations. Breitbart News reported that over 3,000 residents attended the Rockingham Board of Supervisors meeting to demand Second Amendment sanctuary status.

WMRA reported that Rockingham’s Board of Supervisors meeting was held at the Spotswood High School’s gymnasium and “it was standing room only.” County Supervisor Pablo Cuevas announced the voting results to the crowd, saying, “The Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its continued intent to uphold, support, and defend all rights, protections, and guarantees by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Constitution of the United States of America.”

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) says counties will face “consequences” if they refuse to enforce gun control. Rep. Donald McEachin (D-VA) suggests Northam could use the National Guard to compel compliance with new state gun laws.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Good Patriot Calls BS On ‘Beto’s AR15 Boogaloo’ — Don’t Lose Sight Of The LONG Game!


Written by Wes Walker on September 17, 2019

URL of the original posting site: https://clashdaily.com/2019/09/good-patriot-calls-bs-on-betos-ar15-boogaloo-dont-lose-sight-of-the-long-game/

Here’s why we shouldn’t let these Democrat ‘shiny objects’ and bold proclamations distract us from the bigger picture.

If we get caught up in the news cycle, we get drawn into the big, bold proclamations and the sense of urgency they are trying to inject into the conversation about why it is absolutely necessary that we relinquish some aspect or degree of our inalienable rights.

Take a moment to think about that last sentence, and what, exactly, they are trying to talk Americans into. We fought and bled so that we would exist — and continue to exist — as a nation with a revolutionary spirit that would possess both the will and the means to throw off the chains of a tyrant, should one manage to find his way into high office, despite all the checks and balances carefully put into place to deter one.

And they point their fingers with cries of ‘do something’ while offering nothing more specific than the wholesale stripping of our ability remain a revolutionary nation by stripping us of the means we would have to throw off those chains if it ever came down to it.

But Good Patriot makes an excellent point. This is a clever pressure tactic that they hope to make us all fall for.

Think of it as their own twisted version of ‘Art of The Deal’. Make your initial demand absolutely insane and impossible for the other side to accept. When you make another, lesser offer, it will seem like they are being reasonable and ‘compromising’.

But these are the same people who have shown their true colors time and again. The ratchet only turns one way. They take that incremental gain, make it the new ‘normal’, and come with NEW demands that take them closer to that big ‘insane’ goal they had in the first place — the complete negating (in fact or in practical terms) of the Second Amendment as a deterrent to Big Government overreach.

Good Patriot even gives some examples of what ‘compromise tactics’ we should be watching for, and why we shouldn’t accept them.

How should we push back against their long game? For THAT, we’re going to have to wait for her next video.

Related:

Related Second Amendment stories:

America Needs To Hear Judge’s Words in Pro-High Capacity Magazine Decision


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published April 4, 2019 at 3:51pm

A federal district judge in California recently knocked down that state’s ban on firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition as being an unconstitutional infringement of the Second Amendment. The liberal media hasn’t really said too much about the ramifications of this ruling, and for good reason, as it undermines a major argument put forward by the anti-gun crowd in support of their confiscatory gun control schemes.

NBC News reported U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban on possession of “large capacity magazines” that hold more than 10 rounds, in large part due to the commonality of such ammunition feeding devices. Benitez also slammed the lawmakers who think they know what citizens need to defend themselves and their families or protect their homes and property from common armed criminals.

The judge’s 86-page ruling began by declaring “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,” and compared three stories of home invasions in which a woman used a firearm to defend against her assailants. In two of those cases, the victim ran out of ammunition prior to the end of the criminal assault against them, while in the third case, a woman dressed in only pajamas with a large capacity magazine managed to fend off three attackers because she had the extra ammunition in the large capacity magazine.

Benitez wrote that the woman “held a phone in one hand and took up her pistol in the other and began shooting. She fired numerous shots. She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911. After the shooting was over and two of the armed suspects got away and one lay dead, she did get through to the police.”

California first instituted a ban on so-called large capacity magazines in 2000 but allowed those who already possessed such magazines to keep them. However, the law was changed in 2016 to no longer grandfather those previously possessed magazines. Benitez had issued an injunction in 2017 to block the implementation of that law, which would have required all such magazines be turned in or else risk a felony charge for unlawful possession. The reasoning behind the added confiscation and penalties for possession was to reduce death counts in mass shootings. However, Benitez noted that while incredibly tragic, mass shootings were also “extremely rare,” and the law-abiding citizenry shouldn’t be infringed upon with a “solution” to a relatively small problem.

Citing the prevalence of common crimes versus mass shootings — and the fact that it wholly depends on each individual incident to know how many rounds will be needed to defend oneself — the judge decried the limit of 10 rounds to be a significant burden on the Second Amendment-protected right of all law-abiding Americans to possess “arms” necessary for self-defense. The ruling cited the Supreme Court’s monumental District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, as well as other cases similarly couched on that precedent, which guaranteed the right of Americans to possess “common” arms. Benitez ruled that standard magazines that hold more than 10 rounds fell into the category of being arms in common use. He also gave a nod to the “militia” clause in the Second Amendment later in the ruling by noting that, in the unlikely but still possible event a citizen militia would need to defend the country in the future, they would likely have to do so with firearms and magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

“Constitutional rights stand through time holding fast through the ebb and flow of current controversy. Needing a solution to a current law enforcement difficulty cannot be justification for ignoring the Bill of Rights as bad policy. Bad political ideas cannot be stopped by criminalizing bad political speech,” Benitez wrote.

“Crime waves cannot be broken with warrantless searches and unreasonable seizures. Neither can the government response to a few mad men with guns and ammunition be a law that turns millions of responsible, law-abiding people trying to protect themselves into criminals. Yet, this is the effect of California’s large-capacity magazine law,”he added.

The judge also took on the leftist trope that firearms holding more than 10 rounds were “too lethal” for the average citizen to possess. After noting that all firearms of any capacity are “dangerous” and “lethal,” he followed the faulty logic to conclude that, if the 10-round limit were allowed to stand, it could eventually be reduced by the state to as few as one allowable round — a ridiculous notion that would completely undermine the entire premise of armed self-defense.

Judge Benitez concluded that California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds could not survive any level of legal scrutiny, nor was it historically acceptable prohibition, and thus was unconstitutional as it placed an unfair and severe burden on law-abiding citizens.

This judge is exactly right. Nobody knows how many rounds will be necessary to defend against an unknown number of assailants, and arbitrary limits imposed by the state — with criminal liability for non-compliance — only serve to burden law-abiding citizens while having no effect on criminals who are already violating existing laws.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

Song Conservatives Ought to Sing Aloud: Red Like Reagan (Video)


Authored by Tami Jacksonon

URL of the original posting site: https://comicallyincorrect.com/song-conservatives-ought-to-sing-aloud-red-like-reagan-video/

Buddy Brown pic
Buddy Brown is a country singer/songwriter and like so many country musicians, is a conservative patriot! Oh, there are a few loons like the shameful Dixie Chicks, but for the most part Nashville and country music is home to folks who love America and our troops and our Second Amendment.

Yep. Country music stars and fans stand for the National Anthem and proudly put their hands over their hearts for the Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance. So it’s not a big shock to hear a song like this.

Brown’s bio at his site:

Buddy was born in Mississippi and carries deep South culture in his songs today. In 2009, he started playing his songs for YouTube and Facebook audiences. He quickly amassed a following on Facebook that outgrew his own dreams.

Buddy’s music lies somewhere between Charlie Daniels and Justin Moore. His EP “Keepin it Country,”  debuted at #12 on iTunes – Country. “That is rare territory for an Independent artist” says producer Dave Bechtel who has produced 7 projects with Buddy since  2011.

Buddy has played twice for NASCAR at Talladega Superspeedway, and was recently featured in USA Today as an internet sensation.

In May 2015, Buddy signed with CAA Nashville – He headlined 3 House of Blues shows in Texas before setting off on The College Town Throwdown tour with fellow country acts Justin Moore, Jon Pardi, and Brothers Osborne. After that Buddy sold out PBR Bar in Louisville with over 1,100 people. Quite a draw for an independent artist.

Buddy’s 9th EP titled “Just Saying” features 7 new songs and was released March 30!

 

Watch this great video of his catchy song, “Red Like Reagan”:

I can read your mind
We ain’t about to get along
And I know why
You think we owe you and we don’t

Yeah there’s a welfare line
Wrapping round main street
That money ought to help our boys
Coming back from overseas

We’re gonna paint this country red like Reagan
Gonna shoot our guns, gonna eat our bacon
There’s a great big bald eagle who’s smiling on us
And soldiers who died for your privilege to fuss

If you wanna leave
‘Cause you can’t take it no more
Man I’ll show you that damn door
I’ll show you the damn door

And all these protests
You’re throwing out some heavy words
And I’m just wondering
How the hell’d you get off work
‘Cause I got 65 long hours
That I just put in last week
Now I gotta go back home
And hear you whining on TV

We’re ’bout paint this country red like Reagan
Gonna shoot our guns, gonna eat our bacon
There’s a great big bald eagle who’s smiling on us
And soldiers who died for your privilege to fuss

We’re ’bout paint this country red like Reagan
Gonna shoot our guns, gonna eat our bacon
There’s a great big bald eagle who’s smiling on us
And soldiers who died for your privilege to fuss

If you wanna leave
‘Cause you can’t take it no more
Man I’ll show you that damn door
I’ll show you the damn door

Thanks Buddy! As of now I am officially a fan!

#GottaLoveCountryMusic #RedLikeReagan

Author Tami Jackson

avatarTami Jackson is a lifelong conservative embedded in her once red, native state of Oregon, and is the granddaughter of (legal) Norwegian immigrants. Tami is an Evangelical Christian, the “mom” of one Persian cat (Omar), a Second Amendment aficionado, and the chief organizer and instigator of trouble among the Hugh Hewitt Tribbles. She is also Executive Editor of BarbWire.com, Social Media/Content/Marketing for Robar Companies, Editor-In-Chief of RightVoiceMedia.com, and Social Media Marketing Director for Ride the Thunder Movie, and the host of the Tami Jackson Show.

please likeand share and leave a comment

Gun Rights Actually Are a Civil Rights Issue


Modern protests demanding more gun control have been likened to the civil rights movement, but civil rights and gun rights often have gone together in American history. (Photo: David Tulis/UPI/Newscom)

“Young people said, ‘We will not tolerate what our ancestors have tolerated. We’ve had enough and we’re willing to fight for it and we’re willing to march in the streets for it and, if necessary, die for it,’” TV personality Oprah said in comparing the student marches to civil rights demonstrations.

One writer in The New Yorker wrote of the pro-gun control March for Our Lives protest: “The Parkland students seem to instinctively understand that their fight not only crosses racial and class lines but also exists on a historical continuum, as an extension of the civil-rights movement.”

Another recent article in The Washington Post, headlined “Gun rights are about keeping white men on top,” even tried to connect American gun culture and support for gun rights to racism.

However, the author’s historical argument, whether intentionally or not, actually reveals that it is gun control, not gun rights, that generally has been used for the purposes of white supremacy. Gun rights and civil rights, historically, have gone hand in hand.

In a recent interview on “The View,” former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice highlighted the importance of preserving the Second Amendment as an individual right, in some cases the last line of defense in protecting life and liberty.

“Let me tell you why I’m a defender of the Second Amendment,” Rice said on the show. “I was a little girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, in the late ‘50s, early ‘60s. There was no way that Bull Connor and the Birmingham police were going to protect you.”

“I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were, he would have rounded them up,” she said. “So I don’t favor some things like gun registration.”

‘The Work of the Abolitionists Is Not Finished’

In the aftermath of the Civil War, a ferocious battle emerged over how to preserve both federalism and the individual rights of citizens in the states. Gun rights, in some cases, were the only safeguard of liberty and personal safety.

Some of the first states to pass highly restrictive gun control legislation were, in fact, in the Reconstruction-era South. They implemented so-called “black codes” to restrict the rights of former slaves, including the right to bear arms.

One 1866 Alabama law baldly stated that “it shall not be lawful for any freedman, mulatto, or free person of color in this state, to own firearms, or carry about his person a pistol or other deadly weapon.”

The law also made it illegal “to sell, give, or lend firearms or ammunition of any description whatever, to any freedman, free negro, or mulatto.”

Famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass warned about these abuses and said “the work of the abolitionists is not finished” until the Second Amendment and others rights could be protected. This provoked a federal response, according to historian Stephen P. Halbrook. Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of July 1866, which guaranteed to other men “any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons, including the right to … inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms.”

President Andrew Johnson vetoed this legislation, but he was overridden by Congress.

These battles over the protection of individual rights culminated in the passage of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was designed to prevent states from violating the Bill of Rights, which at the time applied only to the federal government. However, even after the passage of the 14th Amendment, racial conflict and battles over gun rights continued for generations.

As Rice explained, individual firearm ownership was often the only protection black Americans had under some legal authorities that did little to protect them.

As Ida B. Wells, one of the founders of the NAACP and an early civil rights leader, wrote in 1892, a year in which an extraordinary number of brutal lynchings took place: “The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.”

“The lesson this teaches and which every Afro-American should ponder well,” Wells continued, “is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”

An Inalienable Right

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas noted this history in his concurring opinion in the Chicago v. McDonald case in which the court ruled that Otis McDonald, a black Army veteran, had been deprived of his Second Amendment rights by the city of Chicago.

Thomas wrote about how the infamous Dred Scott decision before the Civil War was meant to strip black Americans of citizenship and “the constitutionally enumerated rights of ‘the full liberty of speech’ and the right ‘to keep and carry arms.’”

After the war, former Confederate states attempted to curtail firearm ownership for black citizens, and mob and militia violence against those citizens often went unchecked by local authorities.

“Without federal enforcement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, these militias and mobs were tragically successful in waging a campaign of terror against the very people the 14th Amendment had just made citizens,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas concluded that in the opinion of the Founders and authors of the 14th Amendment, “the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty.”

As Thomas, Douglass, Rice, and others so clearly articulated, gun rights—not gun control—have been an essential buttress to civil rights.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


Repeal Revealed

It has been revealed over the past week that the Democrat party is officially the party of repealing the 2nd Amendment.

Repealing the 2nd AmendmentPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

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.

Huck’s Response to Emotional Anti-Gun Marchers Is Best We’ve Heard So Far


Reported By Benjamin Arie | March 25, 2018 at 2:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/watch-hucks-response-emotional/

Mike Huckabee is well known for his calm, warm approach to politics and life — and the former pastor and Arkansas governor just became the voice of reason during the “March For Our Lives” protests.

While appearing on “Fox and Friends,” the politician-turned-commentator addressed the recent demonstrations that are supposedly about stopping violence, but have become essentially anti-Second Amendment rallies where law-abiding gun owners are vilified for the actions of one criminal.

“I salute these students for their passion and their energy, and for their interest in helping to shape public policy,” Huckabee began, extending an olive branch to the young people protesting. “But I would say this to them: Emotion is a terrible substitute for truth.“  March 25, 2018

“It is a terrible substitute for facts,” Huck continued. “And they’ve been used, by believing that if they just ban a certain type of firearm, that things are going to be better.”

That wasn’t just the former governor’s opinion. A vast amount of evidence backs up the view that the left’s “solutions” — many of which have already been tried — would do nothing to actually stop criminals.

“Here’s the facts: Five times more people are killed in America by knives… than they are by rifles,” Huckabee explained.

The most recent FBI data shows that in 2016, there were 374 murders committed using rifles in the entire United States. That includes so-called “assault rifles.” However, a stunning 1,604 murders were committed using “knives or cutting weapons.”

Even hands, fists, and feet were used to kill more often than rifles: Criminals committed 656 murders using just their body.

“It’s also true that over 86 percent of the 20,000 police chiefs and sheriffs in America do not support repealing concealed carry, but rather rather support (gun ownership),” Mike Huckabee went on. “And they don’t support more gun control methods.” 

There’s a good reason for that: As concealed carry has become more common in America, the country has become more safe.

As we’ve previously reported, there was an amazing 215 percent increase in concealed carry permits between 2007 and 2015. During the same time period, there was a 14 percent decrease in the murder rate. In fact, violent crime has been cut in half since about 1990, yet the media constantly acts as if violence is spiraling out of control.

Mike Huckabee’s primary point is so good, it must be repeated: “Emotion is a terrible substitute for truth.” 

The left and the mainstream media seem to be purposely burying facts or even outright lying about statistics in order to promote an agenda.

American schools are actually some of the safest places in the country. Contrary to the narrative, mass shootings in schools have not be dramatically increasing in recent years. Students have a higher probability of being killed riding their bikes or walking to school than by a school shooter.

Huck’s line about emotion over truth is an apt summary of not only the current push against lawful gun ownership, but also almost all of liberalism. One of the hallmarks of being responsible adults is using logic and critical thinking over fear-based reaction and hysteria.

The next time you see a news headline or hear a statement from a protester, ask yourself: “Is this based on reasoned logic and truth, or all emotion?”  That’s an incredibly useful tool to decide which side of an issue to stand on… and in today’s world, detecting the truth is more important than ever.

ALERT! ALERT!: CitiGroup Demands Gun Sellers Restrict Sales or Else


Reported By Benjamin Arie | March 22, 2018 at 3:55pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/citigroup-demands-gun-sellers/

There’s a new battleground in the gun rights debate: Corporate America. Several corporations have already made headlines by dropping NRA membership discount programs or announcing restrictions that make it more difficult for lawful citizens to purchase firearms. Now, one of the largest banks in the country has taken it a step further. Citigroup has announced that customers who are in the firearms industry are no longer welcome … and they’re essentially discriminating against law-abiding Americans based on politics.

“Citigroup said it would not work with firms that sell guns to customers who have not passed a background check or who are younger than 21,” reported BBC News. “It has also barred the sale of bump stocks and high-capacity magazines.”

Remember, federally licensed gun stores are already required by the law to conduct background checks before selling firearms. And there is currently no federal law against selling firearms to law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 21, although the left is trying desperately to change this.

“The measures would apply to clients who offer credit cards supported by Citigroup, or borrow money or use banking services through the firm,” explained the BBC.

In other words, if you’re a local gun shop which follows every law and banks with Citigroup, selling a hunting shotgun to a 20-year-old who passes a background check could now get your account shut down or your credit cards frozen.

Again, we must reiterate: The banking giant is talking about discriminating against sales that are 100 percent legal under federal and most state laws.

More alarmingly, The New York Times reported that the bank was “discussing the possibility” of monitoring and blocking gun purchases at the point of sale — meaning that an individual shopping at a sporting goods store could find their debit card shut down while trying to make a legal purchase.

Incredibly, the bank’s CEO openly conceded that Citigroup was playing politics and trying to “influence” society.

“As we looked at the things we thought we could influence, we felt that working with our clients, we could make a difference,” chief executive Michael L. Corbat told The New York Times.

“Banks serve a societal purpose — we believe our investors want us to do this,” he continued, before admitting that “real revenue is at risk” by shunning lawful firearms and gun accessory businesses.

This decision by Citigroup raises serious questions about the line between business policies and inappropriate — and even unconstitutional — discrimination.

Imagine for a moment that a huge bank did the same thing not against gun owners, but against people with any other political views. Let’s say they implemented a similar policy against a gay rights group or Muslim-owned businesses.

“We will be closing any bank account used by LGBT organizations and Halal restaurants. These do not align with our views. We believe our investors want us to do this.” If Citigroup had instead sent out this letter, what do you think the response would be?

The left seems to want things both ways. They actively sue Christian bakeries and wedding shops into bankruptcy for politely declining to do business with certain customers based on personal views, yet do essentially the exact same thing against a conservative-leaning industry.

Remember, these are businesses that the bank had no problem working with a month ago. They are lawful, respectable stores selling legal products. They haven’t done anything differently. The law has not changed. Yet a major bank has arbitrarily declared that their accounts are no longer accepted.

Not only is selling firearms to qualified citizens completely legal, it’s explicitly protected by the United States Constitution. Self-defense is a human right — yes, even for 20-year-olds — yet a major corporation is trampling on that right while admitting to wanting to “influence” politics.

At the very least, this is essentially corporate bullying. It sets a dangerous precedent, and is only one step away from a bank blocking customers from spending their own money on legal products if biased executives don’t approve.

It isn’t yet clear what the fallout of Citigroup’s decision will be, but it would not be surprising if a strong pushback and even lawsuits are around the corner. The next few months will definitely be interesting.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday March 19, 2018


Confiscation: State Congress Orders Once Legal Owners to Turn in Guns


Authored By Benjamin Arie | March 8, 2018 at 3:59pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/state-gun-confiscation-bill/ 

It happens every time there’s talk of gun control laws: The left predictably scoffs at gun owners, calling them paranoid for not trusting the state.

“Nobody wants to confiscate your guns,” liberals assure the rest of America. “Stop exaggerating.”

Flash forward to Thursday. Lawmakers in Democrat-controlled Illinois have passed a bill to — you guessed it — confiscate currently legal firearms from gun owners. So much for being paranoid. According to Breitbart News, HB 1465 has moved to the state Senate after being passed in the House a week ago. The measure would require citizens between the ages of 18 and 20 to give up ownership of certain guns that they bought legally, or risk becoming seen as criminals.

“The guns and magazines remain legal for persons 21 and up, but persons under 21 would have 90 days to give up ownership,” Breitbart explained.

“The NRA-ILA described the weapons covered by HB 1465 as ‘commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms,’” continued that news outlet. “The bill also requires 18-20-year-olds to forfeit ownership of any magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.”

Semi-automatic rifles, contrary to the portrait painted by the mainstream media, are neither especially exotic or rare. They are actually the most common type of modern firearm owned by law-abiding citizens today, used for sport, hunting and personal defense. At the same time, rifles are used incredibly rarely in actual crimes.

The wording of the bill also made it possible for the government to confiscate handguns, depending on how the definitions are interpreted. Lawmakers outlawed semi-auto pistols for residents under age 21 if the handgun has a “shroud that partially encircles the barrel.” The slide of every modern handgun could meet this definition.

Of course, lawmakers who voted for the legislation offered empty promises that law enforcement would not visit homes to collect the guns. Instead, people who are found with the prohibited firearms would be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor on the first offense.

Penalties would increase for citizens who continue refusing to comply with the law. Those promises are no doubt being taken with a grain of salt by Illinois residents, considering that the same legislators promised that nobody would be confiscating legal firearms to begin with.

The bill must still pass the state Senate to become a law, but it has already picked up support in that chamber. There are currently 37 Democrats in the Illinois Senate, versus 22 Republicans. The state’s governor is a Republican, but his willingness to veto the bill is unclear.

There are a few key points to take away from this development. First, the assurances of liberals that “nobody wants to confiscate your guns” should be dismissed immediately. The evidence doesn’t lie. One look at both the state and federal level shows Democrats lining up to do exactly that, yet the left seems to think that nobody has noticed.

Second, these types of “backdoor bans” are exactly the tactics that Second Amendment supporters need to watch. Gun grabbers know that even on their best day, they cannot pass a blanket ban on firearms in the United States.

Like a ratchet that is tightened one click at a time, Democrats are trying to dismantle gun ownership gradually. It will start with 20-year-old citizens. “Nobody under 21 needs a gun,” they’ll insist, essentially saying that young women, new families, and people old enough to fight in Iraq don’t have a right to self defense.

The line will slowly be moved. One category of citizen at a time, gun rights will be eroded… not in one major sweep, but in a series of “reasonable” laws that happen to be tearing up the Constitution one shred at a time.

Anyone who supports the right to self defense and the Second Amendment needs to speak out. The left may think that they are finally winning, but have a long track record of underestimating actual Americans.

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.

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Monday March 5, 2018


Viral Meme Shows the Real Issue Behind Liberals’ Obsession With Gun Control


Authored By Cillian Zeal | February 22, 2018 at 8:48am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/viral-meme-gun-control/

The only question after every school shooting is how quickly it begins. I’m talking, of course, about calls for guns to be banned and confiscated. This time, it was surprisingly swift and predictably fact-free.

There were, of course, the tweets from liberal luminaries, many of whom used outright lies masquerading as statistics to explain their position. Then there were the angry and/or weepy liberal news anchors berating the GOP for their response. The only twist in the narrative this time was a supposed political movement of cherry-picked high school students who were calling for gun control, all of which was given conspicuous coverage.

The FBI’s mishandling of the case, meanwhile, was pushed to the back-burner. The same thing happened to calls to focus on mental health, even though it quickly became clear the shooter had raised numerous red flags with his behavior in the past and was on the radar of law enforcement.

The most conspicuously-ignored proposal to stop shootings like the one in Parkland, Florida from occurring, however, was the suggestion that schools increase their security. In fact, when Ted Cruz went on CNN to talk about it, the network didn’t even bother to air the footage and half-anchor/half-pundit Chris Cuomo later had the audacity to call Cruz out for shirking an interview with “The Most Trusted Name In News.”

That’s because it involves guns — and, if there’s anything we know from the media, it’s that guns are evil and the more gun-free zones there are, the better. Yet, increased security on campus — in particular letting trained teachers conceal carry — seems to be one of the most effective ways to stop shooters in their tracks, or to stop them from considering schools a soft target in the first place.

One political cartoon sums it up best, and it’s going viral:

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FTheFederalistPapers%2Fphotos%2Fa.112478365457075.7231.107705785934333%2F1779861662052062%2F%3Ftype%3D3&width=500

You can see why this simple yet poignant cartoon has gone viral.

The primary issue with the idea of gun control — especially when it comes to school shootings — is that it primarily affects individuals who aren’t willing to break the law. Given the fact that the Florida shooter had already been on the FBI’s radar, he could have been stopped. But let’s suppose that he hadn’t been.

Say you ban AR-15s and other “assault weapons.” He still could have purchased handguns, which would be just as effective in a gun-free zone where there’s no trained security.

OK, say you ban guns entirely (even though, as per Heller v. D.C., the Supreme Court has already declared that unconstitutional). There are already plenty of illegal guns in the United States. A shooter could easily use the dark web to buy whatever he needed — assuming he didn’t have an illegal weapons connection in real life.

Let’s be clear: there’s no way to effectively confiscate all weapons in the United States, particularly those that are illegally possessed. That’s before you consider that, with the rise of 3D printing, the technology to make firearms is easier to obtain than ever.

That’s why all the gun-free zones and laws in the world won’t stop school shooters, especially given the fact that most of them plan these crimes months — if not years — in advance. The one thing they can always count on is the fact that most schools will be soft targets, with little to no security in their way.

After all that planning, they’re not going to get to the door and say to themselves, “Oh, no — a gun free zone? I’ve been foiled!” In fact, they’re counting on the school being a gun-free zone.

There are plenty of ways to stop mentally ill individuals intent on mass violence. Gun control or gun-free zones are not one of them, in spite of the left’s obsession with disarming Americans.

Watch: Off-Duty Cop Drops Thug in Costco, Stops America’s Next Mass Killing


Reported By Cillian Zeal | December 20, 2017 at 6:16am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/off-duty-cop-costco/

We’ve said it before, and we’ll keep on saying it: A good guy with a gun is the best way to counter a bad guy with a gun.

Capt. Michael Howell of the Kansas City (Kansas) Police Department proved that yet again when he dropped a thug in a Costco who could have been America’s next mass shooter. The incident happened last month but the video was just released last week, according to the Kansas City Star. It shows how Howell managed to kill Ronald O. Hunt.

It happened on Nov. 26 in a Costco in Lenexa, Kansas. According to Howell, he was in the store when he heard Hunt say, “I’m an off-duty U.S. Marshal, I’m here to kill people.”

“I knew that there was a threat that had to be stopped,” Howell said during a Friday news conference.

As Hunt moved through the aisles in what was described as a methodical fashion, Howell tracked the potential killer and then surprised him with his weapon.

“’Police, drop the gun. Don’t move,’” Howell recalls commanding Hunt.

After Howell repeated his command, Hunt turned on the off-duty cop with his weapon.

“That is when I fired at him,” Howell said. “And he went down.”

Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe said that Howell “acted with extreme courage, and saved an unknown amount of innocent lives” and that he wouldn’t face charges over the shooting.

Howell said he just did what had to be done.

“My greatest fear was we had kids with their moms, with their grandmas, with their dads,” Howell said.

“It was little kids running and screaming. And seeing the fear in their faces and knowing whatever it took, I had to do whatever necessary to end this threat so they wouldn’t get hurt.”

Thankfully, as Hunt went through the store with a pistol and a shopping cart, most of the customers fled out the emergency exit.

Meanwhile, Howell should really never have been in the store that day. He had originally planned to go to the Kansas City Chiefs game, but decided to stay at home and get some rest, instead. He had gone to Costco to get an electric fireplace.

As for claims that he was a hero, Howell downplayed the idea.

“I’m just a cop doing my job,” Howell said.

Of course, you won’t hear much in the mainstream media about this off-duty cop doing his job, and how he managed to stop a potential mass murderer before the wannabe killer could injure a single person. That’s because the idea of a good guy with a gun trumping a bad guy with a gun is anathema to the media’s narrative. Nevertheless, we salute Capt. Michael Howell. His quick thinking and bravery saved lives. That makes him a hero — and one more Americans should know about.

H/T Independent Journal Review

Some Facts You Might Need to Defeat Liberals in This Gun Debate


second amendment

Thanks to yet another monster abusing firearms, liberals are again at it and trying to undermine our Second Amendment rights.

Americans innately understand why having the right to bear arms is a good idea, but all too often many lack the historical information and background facts to help them fully understand and argue in favor of those rights. With this I hope to help arm Americans with some of that information they may be missing.

Sadly, there is a consensus among the left-wing and their handmaidens among the media elites that the “right to bear arms” does not really mean we have a right to bear arms. But the truth is, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the founders and their immediate successors in American politics did assume just such a right. The fact is, firearms are not a national plague and the founders did not make an error in focusing on our rights to self-protection.

Of course we all have heard the nonsense that our rights are outdated, or that the founders never meant for them to be taken as individual rights. But, we can go back to the writings of our founders to see what they really meant. What they wrote to each other, in newspapers, and in other statements as they started our country reveals exactly what they meant. The founders spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about the rights of man in the early days and this thinking influenced the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the various commentaries on jurisprudence. These ideas and principles directly affect the meaning of the Second Amendment.

A book called Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws, for instance, was a huge influence on the founders and this is what that important treatise on the law said on arms ownership:

“The right of the citizens that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense.” and ” This is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain violence of oppression” and again “To vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the citizens are entitled … to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.”

Blackstone’s commentaries were accepted as fact by our founders, not mere theory. So, it is clear that what the founders had in mind was that self-preservation and defense was a natural right to be protected by the laws and the U.S. Constitution they were crafting. To put a finer point on this, looking at one founder in particular, James Wilson, is instructive.

James Wilson was one of only 6 founders who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution, he was one of the nation’s first great Jurists, and after an appointment by George Washington, he was one of the first members of the Supreme Court. He spoke on the floor of the Constitutional Convention 168 times and was one of the most active politicians of his day. Mr. Wilson taught his laws students that the rights secured by the Constitution did not create new rights, but simply reaffirmed old ones.

He said that our documents were meant… “to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights to… which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator.”

Wilson wasn’t alone in his thoughts on rights. Thomas Jefferson also viewed our Constitution and principles similarly, saying: “Government is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us.” John Adams stated that, “Rights are antecedent to all earthly government; Rights… cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights are derived from the great Legislator of the universe.”

So, what did some of the founders say about firearms specifically now that we have the principles of self-preservation established? Here are a few quotes that you can use:

“The right … of bearing arms… is declared to be inherent in the people.”
Fisher Ames, one of the framers of the 2nd Amendment in the first congress

“The great object is that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience that, necessary as it is to have arms, … it is still far from being the case?”
-Patrick Henry

“And what country can preserve its liberties if its rules are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”
-Richard Henry Lee

“The advantage of being armed is an advantage which the Americans posses over the people of almost every other nation … the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
-James Madison

“A free people ought … to be armed.”
-George Washington

With that established, we can move on to another historical fact liberals abuse so that they can undermine our individual right to own arms. That is the famous “well-regulated militia” line in the Second Amendment. Liberals like to say that “militia” could only mean a standing military organization like the U.S. Army or the various state guard organizations. But that isn’t what the founders meant. The founders meant the militia to be we, the people. Each of us individually is “the militia.”

So, what is this militia? Try these quotes on that topic:

“The militia are the people at large.”
-Tench Coxe Attny. Gen. of Penn. and Asst. Sec of Treasury under Washington

“Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
-George Mason

“The militia is composed of free citizens.”
-Samuel Adams

“A militia… are in fact the people themselves.”
-Richard Henry Lee

Indeed, the first federal law passed concerning just who a militia member might be, the Militia Act of 1792, states that the “militia of the United States” consists of every adult male in the country. Under that act each adult male was required by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition. In fact, the current law still states, “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 and under 45 years of age.”United States code, title 10 par., 311(a)

That means the “militia” is a description of individuals, not a group.

Additionally, in those days the words “well regulated” only meant orderly. Liberals say “well regulated” invites government regulations. But in that time, It didn’t mean anything like organized “under the law” or under the government. It just meant that the individuals in the militias would be in order and well trained.

Many also claim that “common sense” (and by that they mean gun banning) is a “health issue.” They say that costs are a public issue. But, the proclaimed overwhelming costs of treating gun victims in the country’s health care industry is greatly exaggerated. In an article published in the JMAG in the June 1995 issue, estimates appeared that show health care industry costs for such treatment amounts to about $1.5 billion. That added up to only 0.2 percent of total annual health care expenditures nation wide at the time. You may have seen crazy numbers like $20 to $30 billion is incurred for gun shot victims (most of whom are criminals), but this number assumes a very high lifetime earning rate loss for the victims of gun violence which are added in as a “loss” to the country. Such high lifetime earning estimates assumes that these criminals will suddenly slap their heads, realize the error of their ways and jump into a high paying job market out of the clear blue sky.

Finally, the work of Prof. Gary Kleck and Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research has shown that between 25 and 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost to guns. So medical costs saved by guns in the hands of citizens who use them legally and for protection are 15 times greater than costs incurred by the criminal use of firearms.

So, there you have it. Just a few facts, quotes, and passages that might help you argue in favor of our Second Amendment.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Warner Todd Huston

Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and BigJournalsim.com along with all Breitbart News sites, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, and many, many others. He has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs across the country to discuss his news stories and current events and has appeared on TV networks such as CNN, Fox News, Fox Business Network, and various Chicago-based news programs. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com

More Politically INCORRECT Carftoons for Tuesday November 7, 2017


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


waving flagdisclaimerPosted by GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com

| on April 12, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/school-wants-implement-new-class-will-liberals-crying-love/

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

screen-shot-2017-04-12-at-6-17-56-pm

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.

‘Circuits’ or ‘Circuses’? Here’s why we desperately need judicial reform at the circuit court level


Clown judge / Ken Cook | Shutterstock

With Supreme Court decisions erroneously regarded as the supreme law of the land instead of the Constitution, everyone on the Right is clamoring to ensure that Trump makes the best Supreme Court pick(s) possible. But given that well under one percent of all federal civil and criminal cases make it to the Supreme Court, decisions coming out of the 13 federal courts of appeals ostensibly (and again, erroneously) serve as “the law of the land” for many critical social and political issues, as we so painfully witnessed with last week’s “9th Circus” ruling.

That is why it is at least as an important to fill the federal circuits with originalist’ as it is for the Supreme Court. However, if Trump is going to leave his mark on the judiciary, that would require taking bold measures to overturn established traditions so that each appeals court nominee would be more in the mold of Clarence Thomas than even a Neil Gorsuch, much less a John Roberts or Anthony Kennedy.

Why the U.S. Court of Appeals is so vital

For those paying attention to how a mere district judge in one bad circuit can violate the national sovereignty, you need no tutorial on the importance of the lower courts.

In 2015, 54,244 cases were filed in the 12 regional courts of appeals (not including the specialized appeals court for the Federal Circuit) out of a total of 361,689 that began at the district level. At the same time, only about 80 cases were granted full review by the Supreme Court. In other words, the federal courts of appeals are ostensibly the court of last resort for most federal cases. And given that the Left has successfully redefined the Constitution, almost every political issue has become a federal case.partyof-deceit-spin-and-lies

Even though many of the major cases broadly affecting public policy are granted review by the high court, many languish in the lower courts for years and never make it to the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Supreme Court is clearly influenced by the jurisprudential momentum of the lower courts. Given that most of the circuits are full of post-constitutionalists who make Anthony Kennedy look like James Madison, it creates a peer pressure in the legal community to move away from the Constitution as written.

Keep in mind that most of the major cases of consequence pending before the Supreme Court have been appealed by conservatives because of bad lower court decisions.

Remember, gay marriage didn’t happen in a vacuum with the Obergefell case. Almost every district court and all but one of the circuits redefined marriage in one of the most anti-constitutional opinions of all time. We are witnessing a similar trend with lower courts chipping away at the “plenary power doctrine” on immigration in recent years.

Furthermore, justices will rarely take up a case expeditiously when there is no split decision among at least two circuit courts. Given that the lower courts are in such bad shape — with such a dearth of originalist — conservatives can rarely win in even one circuit on such bedrock issues as voter ID, religious conscience, and an array of immigration issues. The lower courts tee up the contours and the dynamics of the cases that reach the high court. Therefore, if we fail to change the personnel and the procedures of the lower courts, another two solid originalist on the Supreme Court (assuming one of the liberals dies or resigns from office) would have only a limited effect.

Keep in mind that most of the major cases of consequence pending before the Supreme Court have been appealed by conservatives because of bad lower court decisions. The tyranny begins and usually ends in the circuits. Given that Republicans have control of the federal government and most state governments, we will only be playing defense in the lower courts because that is where the Left will plant their flag, even more so than during the Obama era.

Where the circuits stand: An anti-constitutional circus

It’s not just the 9th Circus.9th-circus-court2

You could probably count on your fingers the number of true originalist (à la Clarence Thomas) on the circuit courts. While it’s arduous to game out the “ideology” of each judge and circuit, here is my preliminary attempt at an overview of the circuits.

First, we will begin with this infographic detailing the number of Republican appointees and Democrat appointees by circuit among active judges (not including semi-retired “senior judges”). The graphic also shows the strong influence of Obama’s eight years on the appeals courts and the immediate vacancies that can be filled by Trump.

U.S. Court of Appeals Judges

A few observations stand out.

1. Among active judges, Democrats now have an outright majority on nine of the 13 circuits.

And as we will explain in a moment, the courts are in worse shape than this topline number would suggest because almost every Democrat-appointee is a post-constitutionalist while only half the GOP-appointees are conservatives and only relatively small number are true originalist. Just consider how two GOP-appointed judges were already involved in the immigration ruling, one of the most radical and harmful decisions of all-time.

2. There are 20 vacancies that Trump can and should fill immediately.

But Obama’s presidency was so strategic that it will take a long time to swing back a single circuit. Only 10 of those 20 are Democrat vacancies that would tilt the balance of a seat and most are not in circuits that will fundamentally alter the balance of most three-judge panels.

3. The all-important D.C. Circuit is now 7-4 majority Democrat appointees, with four judges appointed by Obama alone.

The D.C. Circuit is the second most influential court in the land on constitutional issues. Worse, while there are some solid senior judges, Janice Rogers Brown is the only real originalist left among the active judges, with Brett Kavanaugh a mostly reliable conservative. The D.C. Circuit is going to be a dumpster fire for the indefinite future. Moreover, if you drill down into the district level, the District Court for the District of Columbia has an 11-0 Democrat majority among active judges!

Does Congress not realize it has the complete power to rein in rogue courts?

By the middle of the year, when all the current vacancies take effect, there will be 90 Democrat appointees, 69 GOP appointees, and 20 vacancies among active seats on the appeals courts. However, the circuit courts are really in much worse shape than even the top line numbers would suggest.

Remember, almost all of the cases in the appeals courts are decided by a randomly selected three-judge panel, which also includes the senior judges (although their caseload is reduced in varying degrees). While it is possible to request a full en banc review of a case by the full circuit, those reviews are relatively rare in most circuits. Due to the clear Democrat majority on nine of the circuits and the lack of originalist on most of those panels, the legal Left is almost always assured a favorable panel for whatever they are looking to do: redefine marriage, infringe upon religious liberty, throw out abortion regulations, block photo ID, etc.

On the other hand, we’d be lucky to find 15 originalist on the appeals courts who are every bit as conservative as the 90 Democrat appointees — and a number of Republican appointees — are liberal.

Now let’s take a look at the four circuits where there is a supposed GOP majority:

7th Circuit

This is the easiest one to game out. The 6-3 GOP majority is extremely deceiving. This circuit is home to the infamous Richard Posner, a Reagan appointee who quite literally believes that the Constitution as adopted is outdated and should be disregarded. He wrote the 7th Circuit’s tyrannical gay marriage opinion, among many other bad decisions.

Only two of the nine active judges can be considered reliable originalist across the board: Michael Kanne and Dianne Sykes. While many conservative legal theorists have respected Frank Easterbrook for many years, he has shown that he doesn’t believe in an individual right to bear arms. The rest of the Republican appointees range from progressive to unreliable. Thus liberals can pretty much rely on a favorable three-judge panel for almost anything they want.not-okay

6th Circuit

The 9-5 majority of GOP appointees is very misleading if one thinks this is an originalist-dominated circuit.

First, Judge Helene White, although appointed by Bush, is really a liberal Democrat who was selected by Michigan’s two Democrat senators as part of a deal. Jeffrey Sutton, another W appointee, wrote the court’s opinion upholding Obamacare. Out of the seven remaining GOP appointees, only Alice Batchelder could be counted among the most reliable originalist with a few others leaning conservative, such as Raymond Kethledge. Another conservative, Danny Boggs, just retired, so at best his vacancy will be a wash.

Thus, between the liberal active judges and a number of other liberal senior judges in this circuit, it’s hit or miss for conservatives in terms of getting a reliable three-judge panel. In fact, the far Left recently got a three-judge panel to say that transgenderism is settled law and helped promote Jill Stein’s crazy recount in Michigan!

5th and 8th Circuits

The only two circuits that could remotely be considered conservative are the 5th and 8th circuits. However, even the fifth is not as good as its numbers would suggest. The panel certainly has its share of solid judges, with Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, Jennifer Elrod, and Jerry Smith. But last year, conservatives couldn’t even get voter ID past the full panel because a few GOP appointees joined with the Left.

The 8th Circuit is probably the best panel in the country. However, that makes the three vacancies on the court somewhat moot because they’d be better served on other courts.

The balance of power will not shift very soon

As you can see, although there is much hype surrounding the more than 100 vacancies on the court, they will not swing the balance in terms of the circuits. Only 20 of the vacancies are on appeals courts, of which only 10 are Democrat seats, and many of them are on circuits that are irremediably broken or on the 8th Circuit, which is already good.

Want to take back our sovereignty? Start by breaking up the Ninth Circuit

Moreover, the prognosis for the future is grim. Many Democrat judges will view Trump as anathema that they will not retire under his watch. A quick glance at the vacancy list shows that all five of the circuit court judges who retired since Trump won the election were Republican, as were most of the district court retirees. Thus the trend is not indicative of a host of opportunities to flip the balance of the circuits. Which is one more reason why we need wholesale judicial reform in addition to filling vacancies.

Trump must act soon to fill vacancies and demand originalist in the mold of Thomas

Nonetheless, it is important that Trump not wait the traditional six months or so to start the process of filling lower court vacancies. While I don’t believe it will fundamentally alter the balance of the courts, the better judges who are in the circuits make it more likely we will get lucky and have a decent three-judge panel for random, important cases.

However, if Trump is to make his appointments meaningful, he would have to depart from longstanding tradition that gives home state senators major input on nominees and allows them to potentially scuttle the nomination.

One of the reasons why we have many liberal judges from Republican presidents — such as Judge Robart, a W appointee — is because Democrat senators can “blue slip” any nominee from their state they dislike. Under Senate tradition, the Judiciary Committee will refuse to hold a hearing on any nominee that is officially opposed by the home state senators. This is why it’s so hard to get even a marginally conservative judge approved from blue states, much less someone in the mold of Clarence Thomas.

Even in red states with two GOP senators, the judicial nominees often reflect a legal mirror image of their political views, which are moderate at best. And in states with senators from opposing parties, Republicans have often cut deals to approve only those nominees who are acceptable to their home state Democrat senator.

The problem of home state RINOS and Democrats is further exacerbated by the fact that tradition tends to kick-em-out-of-officebind the president to maintaining state continuity in seats within a circuit court. According to CRS, just 13 percent of circuit court appointments since the Kennedy administration have changed state representation from the vacant seat. And it is downright mandated by law that every state has at least one judge on the given circuit court and that every nominee must at least reside within the circuit at the time of the appointment.

Trump would have to expend as much political capital trying to ‘appoint better judges’ in a meaningful way as he would by pursuing judicial reform.

Consequently, if a president wants to fill a vacant seat from a state with a Democrat senator, he would be constrained by tradition from filling it with someone from a state with two Republicans, thereby avoiding a blue slip problem.

To begin with, it’s so hard to find Clarence Thomases in this profession. The limitation of state allocation rules and blue slip obstruction are killers. This is why despite swearing every time we will do a better job “appointing better judges,” we wind up with more Kennedys and Roberts on the lower courts. It’s also why outside of the geographical areas of the fifth and eighth circuits, it’s hard to appoint a string of reliable conservatives. There are three vacancies from the 3rd Circuit, for example, but it will be very hard to fill them with originalist given the geographical problem.

As such, Trump would have to expend as much political capital trying to “appoint better judges” in a meaningful way as he would by pursuing judicial reform. Yet the latter would actually solve the problem in the long run.

It’s quite evident that we still need judicial reform, but in the meantime Trump would be wise to fill the vacancies aggressively on circuit courts and make it clear to Senate Republicans that they are to promote originalist with the same gusto that Obama used to confirm anti-constitutionalists.

horowitz conservative conscience

Will the Church Come Alive in 2017?


waving flagAuthored By: Walker Wildmon / Posted: Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Walker Wildmon Assistant to the President FollowMore Articles

While there is much work to be done in order to bring spiritual revival to America, I believe an awakening Church is the first step in this endeavor.

– Walker Wildmon

Most of us have ideas about how we’d like 2017 to look. Some would like to study Scripture on a more frequent basis.  Others would like to spend more time with their spouse or kids and some would like to improve their physical wellness by exercising. These are all great goals some of which I might actually be participating in myself. In general, I’d like to see myself become a better steward of my spiritual and physical well-being.

Along with these goals, I also have things that I’d like to see the Church in America move towards and see our country fulfill when it comes to public policy.

For years it has seemed as though the Church in general has been asleep. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of vibrant churches across this great land. For the past several decades a war has been fought over the forced acceptance of homosexuality and abortion. Since the dawn of creation God’s people have viewed all forms of sexual deviancy and the murder of innocent life as two horrific sins that cannot be accepted in the public square, much less in our churches. Christians have been in the cross hairs of this agenda and in return it has caused some to shrink back in order to avoid public shaming. I do not blame the world for our passiveness but I place the blame solely on the Church’s shoulders. The Bible mentions over and over again that we will face trials and difficulties because of our faith and that we must not grow weary (Galatians 6). I’m hopeful that the Church in America will come alive spiritually in the near future and become more engaged in making disciples (Romans 13).AMEN

Along with the Church coming alive spiritually, I’m hopeful that believers will activate themselves in the public policy arena to see laws passed which reflect constitutional, and more importantly, biblical principles. Some policies that come to mind regard abortion, school choice and religious freedom.

life-begins-at-conception

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

Abortion, while unconstitutional and barbaric has been legal since 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled on the well-known Roe v. Wade case. Simply because it is legal according to the Supreme Court and has been so for over forty years doesn’t mean we can’t fight to end abortion and save countless babies. Currently, the Supreme Court is split 4-4 between liberal and conservative justices but all it takes is President Trump appointing pro-life justices to one or two present and future vacancies on the high court to give us a pro-life constitutional majority. Assuming this occurs, Americans have a strong chance of seeing Roe v. Wade overturned and in return granting states the sole authority to regulate or outlaw abortion. In the meantime, Americans can pressure their congressmen and women and their senators to defund the largest abortion provider in the United States. Planned Parenthood and its affiliates perform more than 300,000 abortions per year, which amounts to approximately one out of every three in the country according to a Heritage Foundation report. The American Family Association issued a call to action recently which equips you with the proper tools to see that this organization receives no more taxpayer subsidies. Click here to take action.AMEN

School choice is a fairly simple issue. Families shouldn’t be stuck in a failing school system simply because of their zip code. If the federal government will remove itself from local education and allow states to enact school voucher policies, families will have more opportunities to excel in education. A voucher program will also create necessary competition between schools and districts that will almost instantly raise the bar higher, which will in turn improve the educational quality for our children. Taking a free market approach to schooling is necessary if we expect our schools and students to thrive. The Daily Signal published a great article titled “Education Made Simple: What is School Choice?”AMEN

Lastly, it is time for the marginalization of Christians by government officials and offices to end. Over the past eight years we’ve had florist, bakers, and pastors driven out of their occupation or even placed in jail (Kim Davis) for their beliefs. Members of congress have proposed legislation called the First Amendment Defense Act or FADA that “Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” In essence, this would put an end to federal judges and local courts forcing people of faith to either compromise their religious beliefs or face government sanctioned fees and penalties.AMEN

If the Church in America will awaken spiritually and become engaged, not only in the local church but also in the public arena, we could see some positive changes take place in America in the near future. Changes such as defunding Planned Parenthood, allowing school choice and advancing religious liberty will surely lift the weight of spiritual darkness that has covered this land for the past several decades. While there is much work to be done in order to bring spiritual revival to America, I believe an awakening Church is the first step in this endeavor.AMEN

LIVES SAVED: These CIVILIANS Were HEROS — Here’s Why The Second Amendment MATTERS


waving flagWritten by Rob Morse on January 7, 2017

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2017/01/lives-saved-civilians-heros-heres-second-amendment-matters/

They had seconds to save lives. Fortunately, these private citizens were armed. Many lives were at risk and these ordinary people did extraordinary things. They stopped mass murder. All of these examples are from December.

Our first story was in a crowded nail salon. It was the holiday season and the salon was crowded. They had with 10 employees and many customers in the shop that night.

Two armed robbers entered the store. The robbers presented their firearms. They shouted threats at the store employees and their customers. The robbers waved their guns and demanded money and valuables.

One of the store employees was armed. The armed citizen shot one of the robbers. Both robbers ran. One robber drove away and left his wounded accomplice in a stand of trees. Police captured the robber and found his gun. Police are looking for his accomplice. Neither the store employees nor their customers were injured.

Our second story happened in a convenience store. The store clerk saw two men walk into his store at 3:30 in the morning. Even at that early hour on a weekday, there were five people playing video games in the back of the store. The two men who walked in were wearing masks and carrying guns. The clerk ran to the back office behind the counter. The office had a solid door, but the robbers were right behind him. The clerk tried to close the door as the robbers struggled to push it open.

The clerk reached around the door and shot the closest robber. The robbers fired back as they ran. Neither the clerk or his customers were hurt.

Our third story took place in a pawn shop. The store owner and his employee had opened the store only a few minutes earlier. They already had two customers in the shop. Two more men entered, but these men were wearing ski-masks and carrying guns.

The robbers yelled, “Get down on the floor. Get down on the floor or I’ll kill you.”

Then the robber fired his gun. The owner drew his firearm and shot one of the robbers. The second robber ran.

The store owner said he hated to kill another man. The other store employee and the two customers were uninjured.

You saved many lives in December. You save lives every day. Thank you, and carry on.

WANT TO LOSE YOUR GUNS? Here’s How ‘President Hillary’ Will Help You Do That


waving flagPosted on August 19, 2016

hillary and guns

Hey LeftistBearing Arms editor Bob Owens outlines how Hillary will destroy your gun rights, and she can do it without repealing the second amendment.

Don’t let freedom be taken from you, get the word out so we can take down Hillary this November.

By Bob Owens

Hillary Clinton is running the first presidential campaign in the history of the United States based explicitly on the gutting of a core Constitutional and human right.

Clinton has made attacking the human right of self-defense a key part of her 2016 campaign, and if she’s elected—and down-ballot Democrats manage to take control of the Senate and/or House—she’s poised to be able to destroy the gun rights of American citizens in three distinct ways.

  • Place progressive, anti-gun justices on the Supreme Court
  • Pass bans on a wide range of common firearms
  • repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)

Stacking the Supreme Court With Anti-Gun Justicescropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

There is already one opening on the U.S. Supreme Court following the death of textualist Justice Antonin Scalia, and there are likely to be more justices who either retire, or simply pass on due their advanced ages in the next four years.

Progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. Moderate Anthony Kennedy is 80. Liberal-moderate Stephen Breyer is 78.

The next President will appoint a replacement for Scalia, and there has been some terrifying speculation on who that may be.

If the next President is Clinton, and Democrats manage to win control of the Senate in a “wave” election, there’s a good chance that she’s not only be able to appoint a left-leaning justice, but one with radical progressive ideology. Two of the other three elderly justices (Ginsburg, Breyer)  may also retire if Clinton were to take office, to be replaced by much younger and more radicalized justices. I don’t think Justice Kennedy would chose to retire under Clinton, but at 80 years old, health issues forcing retirement, or simply death, are always a possibility.

If Clinton wins, she will appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice, and plausibly as many as four. This would assure a dramatic leftward shift in the court. While it is unlikely that a “Clinton Court” will directly challenge Heller, they will almost certainly decide whether the many state and local “assault weapon” bans weaving their way through lower courts are indeed constitutional. This ties in directly to the next threat of a Clinton presidency.

Banning A Wide Range Of Popular Firearms & AccessoriesCriminals and Dictators

Clinton’s radicalized rhetoric has championed both bans on what she calls “weapons of war,” and the “Australian model” of gun buybacks under the threat of government force.

Actual “weapons of war”—machine guns and selective-fire firearms—have not been manufactured for the civilian market for 30 years, and cannot be, due to the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA).

Yes, you heard that correctly. Despite serial lies by Democrats and the mainstream media, actual military rifles are not manufactured for the American market and haven’t been on over a generation.

What Clinton actually wants to ban are the most common firearms sold in the United States. This includes common hunting rifles, target rifles, many popular handguns, standard rifle and pistol magazines, and—if Clinton follows Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’sderanged lead, could result in the majority of firearms designed in the past 100 years being banned.

The threat of new federal gun laws is even more pronounced if gun owners unhappy with their choice of Presidential candidates, opt to sit the 2016 elections out entirely, and Democrats manage to gain seats in the House and Senate, or even win majorities outright.

Dismantling the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms ActArmed

Hillary Clinton has made it clear that her “death blow” against the Second Amendment won’t be an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment directly, but to instead drive the gun industry itself out of business.

The weapon she has chosen to attack you human right to self defense is the repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, or PLCAA. Clinton has attacked PLCAA repeatedly on the campaign trail, and—lying about it shamelessly—claiming that it grants the firearms industry “immunity” from lawsuits. This claim is entirely false, which Clinton well knows. PLCAA does one thing, and one thing only: it protects the firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits filed by gun control supporters looking to bankrupt gun dealers and gun companies.

burke Giant Government Compliance Officer 20 ban Citizen Control DHS targets Down-by-Lib-600-CI email01 email10 gun free zone hitler IF Orlando-FL-Pol-600 same or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

It’s War – Say the New Black Panthers


New Black Panthers

Well, Babu Omowale is at it again. What – you don’t know who that is? Babu is becoming a real household name – if your household is full of members of the People’s New Black Panther Party, or otherwise a black militant. But I will assume you are not. I’m going to guess that not many members of the People’s New Black Panther Party are regular readers of the cracker known as the Common Constitutionalist.

Babu is the National Defense Minister for the aforementioned party. I actually did a segment on him and them in one of my more recent podcasts. You may link to it here.

Mr. Omowale is a self-professed black militant who claims his “party” wants to establish a “black nation” within America – encompassing five southern states – Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama and Georgia.

In my podcast, I likened his desire of blacks to migrate to the states to reclaim their territory as being similar to the desire of ISIS, who also wish to reclaim territory for their own nation, the Caliphate.

I don’t know how it is going but I’m guessing this “new nation” business is one of those long-term goals.

You may then ask – what are his/their short-term goals? Well, it turns out one of the party’s short-term goals is to declare war. Babu is not real clear on who they wish to declare war on, so I’ll take a stab at it, considering his most recent declaration, and say it’s a war against cops.

He says“Is it a war? Yes, it is. It’s a war against black people because we’re the ones being murdered. We are the ones being killed. So there’s been a war against us.”

Babu

Babu

He made these statements after the shooting of the black man in Milwaukee by a cop. Of course, the policeman was also black, but Babu either doesn’t know, or more likely, won’t mention it because that fact won’t advance his black militant agenda.

Babu spoke to Aaron Klein on radio and told him that, “What you see is people lashing out and fighting against the system. As it is said in the Second Amendment, you know. So this is not new. The people in this country have always defended themselves against tyranny. So I can liken this to a civil war.”

gag meWhen it suits his purpose, Babu is more than willing to reference an amendment written by a white colonialist slave owner. The problem is that Babu is confusing the writing of one dead white guy with another. The Second Amendment, nor the Constitution says any such thing. I believe he is thinking of the Declaration of Independence. But… Tomato…Tomahto.

Going back to Babu’s point that black people are the ones being murdered – I agree with the Defense Minister. Blacks Are Being Murdered – but not Sylville Smith of Milwaukee.

I’m not a fan overall of police body cameras, but it worked in this case. The “black” police officers camera clearly showed that Smith (no relation) had a pistol (which was revealed to have been stolen – hello gun control) and was raising it toward the officer when the cop was forced to make a split-second decision to put him down. That Babu, is not murder. That is self-defense.

However, Babu is right about one thing. Blacks are being murdered at record levels – in the city of Chicago – by other blacks. Black on black murders are at historic levels and the overwhelming majority – easily over 90%, are committed by other blacks.Epidemic of racism

If Babu really wants to make a difference, maybe instead of migrating to the south, the Black Panthers should headquarter in Chicago and claim that territory. Maybe Mr. Omowale can “declare war” on black murders in the Windy City and leave the rest of us alone.AMEN

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

THIS IS BAD @SS: Here’s An ‘Independence Day’ Meme The Left Can SUCK On


waving flagPublished on July 4, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/07/bad-ss-heres-independence-day-meme-left-can-suck/

For Independence Day this year, remember what it is that ticked off our Founding Fathers so much that they started a revolution.

You’re going to love this — especially if you love your Second Amendment rights:

qmeme_1467647781380_791

If you want to tick off a liberal, then the best thing you can do is to celebrate Independence Day:

Screen Shot 2016-07-04 at 10.56.31 AM

Share if you love living in a FREE Nation

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Early American Legal Scholar Called the 2nd Amendment “A Palladium of Liberty”


waving flagWritten by Onan Coca

URL of the original posting site: http://eaglerising.com/34535/early-american-legal-scholar-called-the-2nd-amendment-a-palladium-of-liberty/

2nd Amendment Gun Shall Not be Infringed

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most government it has been the study of rules to confirm this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color of pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

— St. George Tucker from View of the Constitution of the United States

(palladium2/ /pəˈleɪdɪəm noun 1. something believed to ensure protection; safeguard)Hey Leftist

Taylor Millard at HotAir, and Damon Root from Reason Online recently did every American a favor by dredging up the important writings of an early American legal scholar by the name of St. George Tucker. Tucker was a Law Professor at the College of William and Mary before being named as a justice on the Virginia Supreme Court in the early 1800s (1804 – 1811). After several years of service to Virginia, he was called to the Federal bench by Presidents Madison and then Monroe where he served as a US District Court Judge. So the man knows of what he speaks when it comes to commenting on the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution. The above mentioned bloggers used the furor surrounding the Orlando terrorist attack and the subsequent calls from Democrats for gun control to remind us all about the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment… and it’s not hunting.

Portrait of St. George Tucker by Charles B.J.F. de Saint-Mémin.

Portrait of St. George Tucker by Charles B.J.F. de Saint-Mémin.

Millard points out that Tucker’s words echo loudly today because it’s almost as if he were answering the very objections modern Democrats continue to raise about what the Founders intended when it came to guns. Democrats often argue that they only spoke of muskets, to which Tucker replies “not so fast.” Democrats also complain that England (from where we get much of our legal tradition) has outlawed guns, to which Tucker responds, ‘Tyranny’!

Here’s what Tucker had to say about England’s early attempts at gun control:

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

Then over at Reason, Root, further uses Tucker to illustrate that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written with today’s Democrats in mind (and not in a good way).

James Madison, the primary architect of the new Constitution, took seriously such Anti-Federalist objections. “The great mass of the people who opposed [the Constitution],” Madison told Congress in 1789, “dislike it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights.” To remove such objections, Madison said, supporters of the Constitution should compromise and agree to include “such amendments in the constitution as will secure those rights, which [the Anti-Federalists] consider as not sufficiently guarded.” Madison then proposed the batch of amendments that would eventually become the Bill of Rights.

What “particular rights” did the Anti-Federalists consider to be “not sufficiently guarded” by the new Constitution? One right that the Anti-Federalists brought up again and again was the individual right to arms.

2ndFor example, Anti-Federalists at the New Hampshire ratification convention wanted it made clear that, “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.” Anti-Federalists at the Massachusetts ratification convention wanted the Constitution to “be never construed…to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable, from keeping their own arms.”

Meanwhile, in the Anti-Federalist stronghold of Pennsylvania, critics at that state’s ratification convention wanted the Constitution to declare, “that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals.”

It seems pretty clear, based on the writing and observations of one of America’s foremost early legal scholars, that the 2nd Amendment was intended to be sacrosanct. In fact, Tucker wasn’t just any old legal scholar… his work, View of the Constitution of the United States, was the very first systematic commentary on the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

When liberals try to argue that the Founders never intended for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect American ownership of firearms, end their ignorance and point them to St. George Tucker.

H/T HotAir and Reason

This was crossposted at Constitution.com.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Onan Coca

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. You can read more of his writing at Eagle Rising.  Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children.

cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Liberal Gun Control Arguments SHUT DOWN With 1 EPIC Meme


waving flagBy: Wilmot Proviso on June 23, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/gun-control-shut-down/

In the social media gun control wars of 2016, the great liberal argument has been that the Second Amendment was designed by founding fathers who simply couldn’t foresee a gun like the AR-15 being invented.

Never mind, of course, that the AR-15 wasn’t used in the Orlando terrorist shooting, or the fact that Democrats and liberals know so little about guns that they can barely talk about them without making a serious mistake.

There’s also the fact that they’re discounting that the founding fathers didn’t put it that way when they wrote the Second Amendment, as a new meme pointed out.

Exactly:

musket meme eric

The Second Amendment does not read“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, unless the gun looks really scary and fires bullets that aren’t musket balls, and you can load more than one bullet at a time, and — really, why do you need a gun? Let’s pass some gun control laws.”

The Second Amendment wasn’t just an afterthought for the founding fathers. It was one of the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights — the one amendment that would make sure all of the others weren’t violated.

The founders weren’t ignorant men, either. They studied military history and knew the pace of progress. They knew that more advanced firearms were coming, and they hoped that they were writing a document for a nation that would survive hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

To say that they hadn’t seen weapons like the AR-15 coming is to dramatically underestimate their foresight.

And yet, nobody challenges the Bill of Rights on any of the other counts. Free speech is so much freer in 2016 than it was in the 1700s, but most of us don’t believe it’s time to do away with the First Amendment.

So, as this meme demonstrates — if you want to complain about the Second Amendment not being designed for modern weapons, get off the computer and write me out a letter. Or, better yet, stop complaining.

Hey Leftist Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Armed Citizens May Be the Solution to Terrorism, Says Interpol Secretary General


waving flagWritten by |Oct. 22, 2013

qmeme_1465834933674_675

Open Carry / formatted_dad / photo on flickr

What do you do when terrorists turn from attacking well-protected government buildings and transportation centers in favor of anyplace that people may congregate? Specifically, how do you address bloody scenarios like the assault on the Westgate mall in Nairobi, Kenya by the Islamist group al-Shabaab, which killed at least 61 civilians? Well, the Secretary General of Interpol, the international police-coordination organization, says you either start providing “extraordinary security” perimeters around anything that might be a target, or else let people carry the means to defend themselves. Surprisingly, he seems to lean toward empowering individuals to take responsibility for their own defense.

In an interview with ABC News, Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble said:

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

“Enclaves” translates as “any place people gather,” which could be a mall, a theater, a supermarket, a town square… That’s an awful lot of secure perimeters to set up. No doubt, plenty of police unions and politically well-connected private security companies would love to see that effort made, but are you really going to throw a cordon up every time a few people gather to chat about the weather or have a barbecue? Unusually for a government official (he was the Undersecretary for Enforcement of the United States Department of the Treasury, in charge of the Secret Service as well as the ATF), Noble obviously sees that as a bit of a daunting challenge. He adds:

“Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?” Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. “What I’m saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?’ This is something that has to be discussed.”

“For me it’s a profound question,” he continued. “People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn’t be armed,’ etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you’re in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'” 

Ronald. K. NobleInterpolI’d answer that allowing people to proactively respond to threats has always been a better idea that trying to anticipate what assailants might consider to be an easy target. You can’t fortify every gathering on the planet, and each security perimeter will still have potential victims within it for the enterprising terrorist who can penetrate “extraordinary security.”

The Secretary General, by the way, also called for tighter passport controls, so his comments weren’t a totally unmixed bag for those of us favoring personal liberty and autonomy. Travel has become an increasingly bureaucratic ordeal over the past century, and that doesn’t look likely to let up soon.

Noble (pictured at right) was first appointed to oversee Interpol’s day-to-day work in 2000, and his third five-year term is up in 2015. After voicing even measured support for armed citizens in a world where governments have never much liked the idea, let’s see if he makes it to through the full gig.Disarmed Citizenry

Update: Minneapolis police officers may agree, even by accident, with Secretary General Noble. They’re objecting to an NFL policy banning off-duty cops from taking their guns into stadiums. Without their guns, they point out, they won’t be able to respond to attacks.

J.D. Tuccille is a former managing editor of Reason.com and current contributing editor.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Trump Releases His Plan for 2nd Amendment… Leaves Millions Furious


waving flagBy: Ben Marquis on April 27, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/trump-plan-2nd-amendment

cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

One common criticism of billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trump is that he far too often speaks in vague generalities and rarely offers specifics about where he stands on the issues. That is no longer the case, at least regarding his stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment, as Trump just released his official policy position on his campaign website.

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away. He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear. In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.Hey Leftist

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government. Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.Criminals and Dictators

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system. Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.Armed

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment. Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Sheriff Clarke: Slavery Finally Ended Because Blacks Were Armed


waving flagBy Brian Lonergan | March 11, 2016

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. (AP)

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. used a recent discussion on criminal justice reform to draw a connection between the end of slavery and the Second Amendment, saying, “the abolition of slavery was inevitably due to the arming of blacks.”

Appearing at a panel on criminal justice reform at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Md., on March 3, Clarke cited the writings of 19th century abolitionist and writer Frederick Douglass in support of gun ownership by fugitive and freed slaves.

“Douglass strongly supported the right of fugitive slaves to have and use weapons to resist kidnapping,” he said. “When government fails to protect the just right of any individual man, that man rests on his original right of self-defense even if it means shooting down his pursuers. Slavery is a system of brute force. It must be met with its own weapons.”

“He went on to say that freedom was worth fighting for,” Clarke continued. “Slaves plus guns equal freedom. The abolition of slavery was inevitably due to the arming of blacks. Now if you think for one minute that I’m going to cede these rights back to the federal government or any government or any court, you’d better think again.”Hey Leftist

A vocal defender of Second Amendment rights, Clarke concluded his statement by holding up a copy of the Constitution and saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, I will fight for your rights under this document like it were my right, and it is. And I will die fighting for this document.”   

Clarke was joined on the panel at CPAC by Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia attorney general, Pat Nolan, director of the American Conservative Union’s Center for Criminal Justice Reform, and Washington Times reporter Kelly Riddell.

David A. Clarke Jr., a Democrat, was elected to a 4-year term as the sheriff of Milwaukee County in 2002, and was re-elected in 2006, 2010 and 2014. In those elections he won, respectively, with 74%, 78%, 74%, and 79% of the vote.

Trump Releases His Plan for 2nd Amendment… Leaves Millions Furious


waving flagBy: Ben Marquis on September 18, 2015

URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/trump-plan-2nd-amendment

One common criticism of billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trump is that he far too often speaks in vague generalities and rarely offers specifics about where he stands on the issues. That is no longer the case, at least regarding his stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment, as Trump just released his official policy position on his campaign website.

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away. He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.Picture1

In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government.

Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system.

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment. Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to help spread Donald Trump’s official policy position on the Second Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms.

Die true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagGuard On Duty

Scalia The Guardian of the 1st and 2nd amendment, how will Obama’s choice measure up?

Scalia The Guardian / Political Cartoon by A.F.Branco ©2016.

More A.F.Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

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

kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204 Imperial President Obama obama- Marxist tyrant Tyrant Obama Cloward Pevin with explanation Free Speech Definition Clinton Democrat Party Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies Picture1 democrat problem Indenification of Obama destruction unfit Tytler cycle cdr modified 071712 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

This Is What Happens When the Government Disarms You


waving flagPosted 8 hours ago by

URL of the original posting site: http://politicaloutcast.com/2016/01/this-is-what-happens-when-the-government-disarms-you/#B6poR5yMzUY3mLCg.99

This story enrages me. FOX 2 reports: Horrific playground gang rape has NYPD asking public for help.”

Another crime in a gun free zone.

New York police are looking for five men who forced a father at gunpoint to leave his daughter behind so they could take turns raping her, according to a press release.

The 18-year-old female was with her father at the Osborn Playground in Brooklyn around 9 p.m. Thursday when they were approached by five men, according to a press release from the NYPD. 

One of the men pulled a gun on the father and daughter and demanded that the father leave the area, the press release said.

Then each of the five suspects raped the teenager, according to the NYPD.

“The father returned a short time later with two uniformed police officers,” the press release said. The suspects then quickly fled the park and evaded police capture.Criminals and Dictators

So when people say they need more police protection do the mean they want the police to investigate after they have been killed, raped, or otherwise victimized?

I don’t think so.

The victim was taken to a nearby hospital where she was treated and released, according to the press release.

The article tells us that an NYPD spokesperson said she had cuts on “her arms, neck, and knees” from the attack.

What aggravates me about the reports is the many people telling us that parks need more police. The people of New York are already overtaxed. We need private solutions.

If you wonder why liberals tend to fear and oppose the private ownership of firearms, it is simply another aspect of their superstitious belief in socialism. Just like they believe the government is better at supplying healthcare, they think the government is the best provider of security. And just as happens in any other socialist economy, the resource in question gets misallocated. Some areas of a city get extra protection (in highly visible and politically significant areas) while other areas (poor neighborhoods at night) experience shortages.Disarmed Citizenry

Even apart from corruption and political favoritism, no bureaucracy can claim responsibility for the security of a city and efficiently calculate what amount of police presence and other resources each area needs. The larger the city the more difficult it is to guess what is needed.

Yet that is what New York State and New York City have done. They have assumed a burden they cannot possibly carry. And then they have criminalized the only efficient mechanism that society possesses for providing security wherever it is needed: privately-owned firearms. Every law-abiding father and mother is powerless to defend a child from an attack.

But the ruling class cares much more about protecting their stolen monopoly on power than they care about the people the pretend to care about. Barack Obama never weeps for the many people who die because they have been disarmed by their own government. He weeps in frustration that he can’t push more gun prohibition. He wants all the fathers in Dallas and other cities to also have no option but to run off and find the police while gangs molest their children.

Socialism is always about depriving society of its natural abilities to deal with the peoples’ needs on the basis of the empty promise that the government can do it better. Gun control is just part of the socialist vision.

Picture13 burke Hey Leftist In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Former Congressman On Obama’s Gun Action: ‘It’s War. Defy’ Him


waving flagWritten by Steve Guest, Media Reporter, 12/31/2015

U.S. President Barack Obama holds his end of the year news conference at the White House in Washington December 18, 2015. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

U.S. President Barack Obama holds his end of the year news conference at the White House in Washington December 18, 2015. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Walsh, who is now a radio host on AM 560 The Answer in Chicago linked to a CNN article that announced that President Obama is expected to take new executive action on guns in order to expand background checks on firearm sales.

(RELATED: Obama Planning To Pull The Trigger On Gun Control Executive Order)

obama

dangerously delisionalThe Obama administration’s “imminent” announcement comes ahead of the January 12th State of the Union address. Obama’s executive actions would further his unilateral steps of gun control.

(RELATED: Obama’s Gun Control Measures Won’t Solve Anything)

CNN reports that White House spokesman Eric Schultz declined to comment on the timing or the content but said that Obama expected a set of recommendations on “unilateral action” to arrive on his desk at the beginning of 2016. Disarmed Citizenry
“It is complicated,” Schultz said. “That’s why it’s taken some time for our policy folks, our lawyers, and our expects to work through this and see what’s possible.” Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

While the National Rifle Association declined comment to CNN on the Obama administration’s latest unilateral action on gun control, the NRA previously said Obama’s “gun control agenda was rejected by Congress. Now, he is doing what he always does when he doesn’t get his way, defying the will of the people and using executive action.”obama- Marxist tyrant

Arguing that the current gun laws in California are Obama’s “wish list of gun control” the laws did not “prevent the San Bernardino attack.” 

NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said, “The fact is, the President’s gun control agenda will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense.”

(RELATED: Obama Spends 27 Percent Of Speech Scolding Americans On Guns, Racism; 8 Percent On ISIS Threat)

cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Millions Furious As Trump Releases His Plan for 2nd Amendment…


waving flagWritten by Andrew SpaldingThursday, November 26, 2015

One common criticism of billionaire businessman and presidentialcropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg candidate Donald Trump is that he far too often speaks in vague generalities and rarely offers specifics about where he stands on the issues. That is no longer the case, at least regarding his stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment, as Trump just released his official policy position on his campaign website.

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the email02Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.

In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government.

Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system.

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.Hey Leftist

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment.

What do you think about Trump’s plan? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Australia Gun Control Fallacy


The massacre in Charleston, South Carolina of nine members of a Bible study at a historic African-American church has horrified the entire country. Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old avowed white supremacist, has confessed to the shooting. As news of this cold-blooded murder spread, attention turned, as it inevitably (and understandably) does after such incidents, to the subject of the presence of guns in American society.

Yet it quickly became apparent that America’s moribund gun control debate would remain moribund. President Obama’s declaration that the country “needs a change in attitude” had a rote quality to it, as did Hillary Clinton’s ringing endorsement of “common-sense gun reforms.” As for Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s (D-New York) exhortation to pass legislation she recently introduced to require gun owners to obtain liability insurance on the grounds that “[i]f you want to buy that Uzi, the thinking goes, you should also have to pay for the risk that gun poses to society as a result,” the less said the better.

Calls for stronger background checks on gun purchases or a new ban on “assault weapons” have become formulaic. They’re like winding a Victrola: the record resumes spinning but it plays the same old song. Another tune in the gun-control songbook, however, is worth listening to. Not as many sing it, but nonetheless it is instructive as it shows the chorus of the media and gun-control advocates at their laziest and most uncurious, and at their most disingenuous if not dishonest. What song do I mean? I forget its name, but it goes something like this.

What Australia Did After a 1996 ShootingHey Leftist

After any mass shooting someone will invoke the name “Australia” and raise the question, “Can Australia’s gun-control laws be a model for the United States?” This time the honor belonged to CNN’s Laura Smith-Spark, who recounts the circumstances that led to Australia’s current gun-control laws and outlines their provisions. The laws were passed after the Port Arthur massacre, a 1996 mass shooting in which one man killed 35 people. Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and implemented strict licensing and registration requirements. The cornerstone of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program. The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.

The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.

The Australian paradigm became popular in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings in 2012. USA Today, ABC News, Slate, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor were among the outlets that published articles urging Americans to look closely at the actions their antipodean cousins took after a similar tragedy. Nor are Americans the only ones who think we should heed the Australian example. Numerous Australians have expressed pride in their country’s gun laws by penning columns beseeching Americans to transport America’s gun laws from Down Under.

These articles all point to the reduction in the rate of gun deaths in Australia after the new system was established as its main achievement. But it is the policy that allowed that system to be established which holds the writers’ and consequently the reader’s attention. That policy is the gun buyback program, which removed up to one million weapons from Australians’ hands and homes. This was, depending on the estimate, a fifth to a third of Australia’s gun stock. The statistic does not seem remarkable as a raw number, but it is quite so when expressed as a percentage. No wonder commentators fixate on it. The problem is the way most of them tell that tale: when they describe Australia’s gun buyback program, almost none of them tell the truth about it.

The Australian Law Banned and Confiscated GunsGuns

The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. Only the articles from USA Today and the Washington Post cited above contain the crucial information that the buyback was compulsory. The article by Smith-Spark, the latest entry in the genre, assuredly does not. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it. That’s like writing an article about how Obamacare works without once mentioning the individual mandate.

Yet when American gun control advocates and politicians praise Australia’s gun laws, that’s just what they’re doing. Charles Cooke of the National Review shredded the rhetorical conceit of bellowing “Australia!” last year after President Obama expressed his admiration for gun control à la Oz:

You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.

Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.

Democrat Leaders Support Gun ConfiscationGun Control Supporters cropped

Not all gun control proponents prevaricate. Some are forthright about their intentions. After Sandy Hook, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) stated she was considering legislation to institute a mandatory national buyback program. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also expressed an interest in confiscation, at least for assault weapons. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Ultimately, New York did not institute confiscation, but did require registration of existing assault weapons and banned all sales of new and existing ones within the state.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation.

Gun buybacks remain a popular policy with the Left because it is the only way of achieving what the Left regards as the only acceptable gun-control solution: reducing the number of guns in America. Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress proposed such a program after Sandy Hook. Conceding that anything mandatory was unlikely to pass Congress, he pitched a gun buyback program as a form of economic stimulus: give people cash for guns, which they can then spend on other things. “Make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse. Instead of a measly $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.” Why a gun owner would accept $500 for a gun that likely cost considerably more is a question Miller unsurprisingly does not ask, let alone answer. Posing it would puncture his balloon.

Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation. Earlier this year, the advisory commission appointed by Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy after Sandy Hook recommended banning the sale and possession of “any rifle or handgun that accepts a detachable magazine.” Commission members shrugged off suggestions that this would entail an unconstitutional prohibition on most firearms Americans own, saying it was not their job to take such niceties into account. The editorial board of the Newark Star-Ledger displayed similar “magical thinking” last September when it called for mandatory confiscation in New Jersey. Predictably, the board cited the Australian example, pointing to the drop in gun violence there as all the necessary justification for inaugurating such a program here. The editorial board concluded by bemoaning America’s “hysteria over ‘gun confiscation,’” which would keep their fantasy just that.

How Would Government Get the Guns?cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpg

On this point at least they are correct. Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let’s suppose it did. How would it work? Australia’s program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

To achieve in America what was done in Australia, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.

The 310 million guns in America are not owned by 310 million Americans. Just how many Americans own guns, though, is controversial. The General Social Survey shows gun ownership on a four-decade downward trajectory, to 32 percent of households in 2015. A 2011 Gallup poll, on the other hand, found gun ownership at a two-decade high, with 47 percent of Americans stating they possessed a firearm. As Harry Enten of The Guardian observed, the answer to the gun ownership question seems heavily dependent on wording and methodology: phone surveys consistently find higher rates. Moreover, and this is the key point, those rates, however the surveys are conducted, have been static for at least 15 years, while background checks have soared.

A third to a half of the U.S. population translates to 105 to 160 million people. A fifth to a third of guns is 60 to 105 million. Now that we see what is required for an American buyback scheme to work on an Australian scale, we can at last we confront the question gun-control advocates never ask, let alone answer: how do you take 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? The answer to that question is the answer to the question of whether the Australian example really is valid for America after all. If the experience of “blue” states which introduced gun regulations that have nearly universal approval on the Left is any indication, liberals are likely to experience keen disappointment.

Americans Resist Gun Confiscationburke

Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a ban on “high-capacity” magazines regardless of when they were manufactured or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.

If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do Democrats expect would happen in “red” states?

New York and Connecticut are two of the “bluest” states in the Union, states with staunchly liberal Democratic governors and legislatures dominated by Democrats and Northeastern Republicans who vote for gun control. Yet the residents of these states have refused to go along with the kinds of laws that gun-control advocates view as a minimum for what they would like to see adopted at the federal level. If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do they expect would happen in “red” states?Progressives will not answer that question because they never ask it, not even to themselves, lest somehow they say it out loud. On guns, the Left is incoherent, even insincere. It won’t say what it wants because what it wants is “a nonstarter politically, unfeasible in reality, and, by the way, completely unconstitutional”—that is, confiscation on the Australian model.Liberals refuse to confront the implications of their Australian dream because doing so would force them to give that dream up. Those implications are easy to spell out, though. A national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals. Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws. The other 48 states are not New York and Connecticut. Civil disobedience on a national scale would ensue.

The Australia Plan Would Require Coercion and ConflictTree of Liberty 03

New York and Connecticut authorities so far have shown no inclination to enforce their laws by going door to door to round up unregistered guns and arrest their owners. But that’s what would be necessary to enforce the law. A federal law, therefore, would require sweeping, national police action involving thousands of lawmen and affecting tens of millions of people. If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

If proponents of gun control are serious about getting guns out of Americans’ hands, someone will have to take those guns out of Americans’ hands.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, would require government force and coercion on a massive scale. Now, progressives don’t understand the nature of coercion, so maybe they would not see police action to enforce gun confiscation as coercion. Or, perhaps, they actually do understand that their ideal form of gun control requires it, which is why they keep speaking in code and talk about “Australia” and not “wholesale confiscation.”Citizen Control

Let there be no doubt. Gun confiscation would have to be administered by force of arms. I do not expect that Tyranney Alertthose who dismissed their fellow citizens for clinging bitterly to their guns are so naive that they imagine these people will suddenly cease their bitter clinging when some nice young man knocks on their door and says, “Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns.” As though somehow those who daily espouse their belief that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to resist government oppression and tyranny will not use the Second Amendment to resist what they see as government oppression and tyranny. Or maybe they are so naive.

Many on the Left—and for this they are to be commended—have voiced their opposition to the increasing militarization of America’s police. Yet only a militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the United States. To take arms from men requires men with arms. There’s no other way to do it.Comming Soon 02

Yet because of the numbers of guns and men with guns in this country, any policy to remove those guns will inevitably depend on some measure of coercion, quite possibly a heavy measure. Does anyone honestly believe this country has the will or resources to seize 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? “Progressives believe it,” I hear you answer. Yes, but the ones who do, believe this dishonestly.

Modeling Australia Means Civil War

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

In an op-ed for the New York Times written after Sandy Hook, John Howard, the prime minister who oversaw the passage of Australia’s current gun laws, implored Americans to consider his nation’s example. Yet Howard fully understood the fundamental irrelevance of his country’s laws to the United States, and undermined his case by highlighting the differences between the two countries.

Our challenges were different from America’s. Australia is an even more intensely urban society, with close to 60 percent of our people living in large cities. Our gun lobby isn’t as powerful or well-financed as the National Rifle Association in the United States. Australia, correctly in my view, does not have a Bill of Rights, so our legislatures have more say than America’s over many issues of individual rights, and our courts have less control. Also, we have no constitutional right to bear arms. (After all, the British granted us nationhood peacefully; the United States had to fight for it.)Armed

Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.

There is an essential mendacity, whether intentional or not, to all suggestions that Australia’s system of gun control is suitable for the United States. Conjuring Australia isn’t innocent. But this trick does serve one valuable purpose: when gun controllers perform it they reveal what they truly desire. An Australian-style gun-control regime, it must be abundantly clear by now, would not only be impractical in the United States, it would be immoral. We would all be better served if American gun-control advocates acknowledged this reality and left their fantasy Down Under where it belongs. 

Varad Mehta is a historian. He lives in suburban Philadelphia.
freedom In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Obama On Confiscating Guns: Then And Now


waving flagPosted by Jim Treacher, Blogger // 10/02/2015

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/02/obama-on-confiscating-guns-then-and-now/#ixzz3nRm9rUGR

              New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly looks at some of the guns seized as part of gun smuggling between the Carolinas and New York, Monday, Aug. 19, 2013 in New York. Authorities say couriers smuggled 254 guns into New York City by stashing weapons in their luggage on discount buses. The men were caught in a police sting that netted 254 weapons in 45 transactions since last year. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

Smart-power-600-LAClearly, he’s “evolved” on the subject. After all, back in 2008, nobody had ever shot anybody else in the history of the world. This phenomenon has only developed over the course of Obama’s two glorious terms in office, for some reason, and it’s about damn time he grabbed those guns you yahoos keep clinging to.

Umpqua Community College is a gun-free zone. Obviously, this shooting proves that we don’t have enough of them.

Once again, I call on President Obama to disarm the Secret Service. Make the White House a gun-free zone. Show everyone that we can make this world a better place if we openly declare ourselves to be utterly defenseless.gun free zone

Oh, and pass more gun laws. Lots more gun laws. “We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the least gun deaths,” said the Greatest President in History. Sure, this isn’t factually true, but it’s emotionally true. It feels good to say it. So keep saying it.

Ignore reality. It’s the only thing keeping us from achieving Utopia.

(Hat tip: Ed Driscoll)

 

Wolf and Lamb who want unarmed citizens trust right Makes sitting ducks liberals-hypocrites-politics-1356760558 Gun Control Supporters cropped Criminals and Dictators citizens armed tyranny In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it


       Published September 25, 2013 FoxNews.com

Socialism alert
kerry_un_092413.jpg

kerry_un_092413.jpg Sept. 24, 2013: President Obama walks past Secretary of State John Kerry during a meeting at U.N. headquarters in New York. (AP)

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement.  As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a “significant step” in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights. “This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors. This is about reducing the risk of international transfers of conventional arms that will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes. This is about keeping Americans safe and keeping America strong,” he said. “This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom. In fact, the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legitimate purposes.” Bull

Imperial President ObamaU.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.  Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., in a letter to President Obama, urged his administration not to take any action to implement the treaty without the consent of the Senate.  He claimed the treaty raises “fundamental issues” concerning “individual rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.” 

The National Rifle Association blasted the plan, claiming it would impose an “invasive registration scheme” by requiring importing countries to give exporting countries information on “end users.”  “The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “These are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights and liberties of every law-abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom.” Hey Leftist

Gun Control Supporters croppedSen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, also sent a letter to Kerry declaring the treaty “dead in the water,” since a majority of senators has gone on record against the agreement. “The administration is wasting precious time trying to sign away our laws to the global community and unelected U.N. bureaucrats,” he wrote.  Kerry, who is in New York attending the U.N. General Assembly session, announced earlier this year that the administration planned to sign the treaty.

The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.  Still, gun-rights supporters on Capitol Hill warn the treaty could be used as the basis for additional gun regulations inside the U.S. and have threatened not to ratify.

Over the summer, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to President Obama and Kerry urging them to reject the measure for this and other reasons.

The chance of adoption by the U.S. is slim. A two-thirds majority would be needed in the Senate to ratify. Wolf and Lamb

trustWhat impact the treaty will have in curbing the estimated $60 billion global arms trade remains to be seen. The U.N. treaty will take effect after 50 countries ratify it, and a lot will depend on which ones ratify and which ones don’t, and how stringently it is implemented.

The Control Arms Coalition, which includes hundreds of non-governmental organizations in more than 100 countries that promoted an Arms Trade Treaty, has said it expects many of the world’s top arms exporters — including Britain, Germany and France — to sign alongside emerging exporters such as Brazil and Mexico. It said the United States is expected to sign later this year. The coalition notes that more than 500,000 people are killed by armed violence every year and predicted that “history will be made” when many U.N. members sign the treaty, which it says is designed “to protect millions living in daily fear of armed violence and at risk of rape, assault, displacement and death.” Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Second AmendmentMany violence-wracked countries, including Congo and South Sudan, are also expected to sign. The coalition said their signature — and ratification — will make it more difficult for illicit arms to cross borders. The treaty covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. It prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The treaty also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

In addition, the treaty requires countries to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market. This is among the provisions that gun-rights supporters in Congress are concerned about.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

right who want unarmed citizens Makes sitting ducks Criminals and Dictators burke In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Seattle moves forward with “gun violence tax” on all weapons, ammo


waving flagPosted at 2:01 pm on August 9, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

This week the Seattle City Council moved one step closer to imposing a sweeping sales cropped-george-washington-regarding-2nd-amandment.jpgtax on both weapons and ammunition which appears to fly in the face of a thirty year old state law banning such restrictions. A committee vote took place on Wednesday and the proposal will move to a full vote tomorrow. And this is just a bad deal all the way around.

The committee voted unanimously this morning to send the proposal to the full city council for consideration next Monday, according to the Seattle P-I.com. Monday’s vote could set the stage for a legal confrontation, and there were hints that existing gun shops could move out of the city, and that gun owners living in Seattle will simply shop outside the city, thus thwarting any dreams that this tax will generate $300,000 to $500,000 annually for the city’s gun control efforts.Alinsky affect

Waiting in the legal tall grass are the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They’ve already advised against the tax proposal, primarily on the grounds that it will violate the state’s 30-year-old model preemption law.

Even if this move were to pass muster in terms of the state’s preemption law, it is bound to accomplish very little beyond the thinly veiled intent of punishing lawful gun owners and gun shops. A tax such as this is certain to do almost nothing to total volume of sales except for those truly living on the edge and simply shifts business from one location to another. NRA ILA summarizes the concept.

The burden of regressive taxes like the Seattle proposal falls squarely on those that are least able to afford them. Persons of means will simply drive outside the city to purchase firearms and ammunition, while those without such options will be forced to go forego their rights or pay the tax. This is especially egregious considering how those at the lower end of the economic scale also tend to reside in areas where violent crime is the highest. One wonders whether this type of social engineering on the downtrodden is an intended feature of the legislation rather than an unfortunate consequence.Leftist Giant called Tyranny

Supporters are claiming that this tax could bring in a half million dollars in revenue, but under the best of circumstances that sounds vastly inflated. It also doesn’t take into account how much it could affect the local market. As one local gun dealer pointed out, it’s a competitive sales space and they already sell pretty much on the margins. If he has to jack up the price of a ten or fifteen dollar box of ammunition by five dollars, shooters will simply go outside the city limits and buy their rounds where the tax is not applied. The same goes for new gun purchases. If sales plummet, the tax revenue goes down by default and if the shops close, the revenue disappears entirely.

Of course, that’s been the idea all along. This isn’t a tax intended to raise revenue for vital services. It’s a political statement. That’s why the supporters of the proposal even call it the gun violence tax. They’re not expecting to raise cash or reduce violence. They’re simply looking to show their base constituents how “serious” they are about restricting gun rights. The irony behind all of this is that the city will doubtless face a series of expensive lawsuits if the tax is put in place and they’ll probably lose. In the end they will wind up getting no revenue and the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for the court costs and associated expenses.

But hey… this is Seattle. What did you really expect?

Symbolism over substance squeeze into mold insane Demorates freedom combo 2

The Constitutional “Shall Not’s” of Congress


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

shall notVigilance-2

Universal human rights are determined by government restraint. In what areas of human life should the government not be involved? What areas of life must the government not regulate, not restrain, not limit, not oversee, not implement, not subsidize, not legalize or make illegal? Interestingly, the first five words of the Bill of Rights state what Congress cannot do: “Congress shall make no law… .” Even more telling– the first ten amendments, with perhaps The Sixth as the exception, all define what the government cannot do:

  • First: “Shall make no law … prohibiting … abridging,
  • Second: “Shall not be infringed”
  • Third: “No soldier shall … without the consent …”
  • Fourth: “Shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue …”
  • Fifth: “No person shall be held … nor shall any person be subject …”
  • Seventh: “Shall be preserved … No fact … shall be otherwise reexamined …”
  • Eighth: “Shall not be required … Nor excessive … imposed, nor … punishments inflicted”
  • Ninth: “shall not be construed to deny or disparage”
  • Tenth: “Not delegated … nor prohibited.”

The third, fifth, eighth, and tenth amendments don’t state “rights;” they state what authority the government does not have. In effect, limits on government are universal human rights. The Constitution outlines specific areas of human life that are off-limits to government. This suggests that there are certain aspects of human life which are fundamentally free.tie it down

The Constitution did not outline rights or prohibitions defined by a government that could later redefine them. It outlined rules to be followed by a self-ruling people in addition to separating and balancing political authority among judiciary, legislative, and executive branches.

Despite the limits the Founders enumerated in the Constitution, their limits are still limited in their ability to constrain government overreach. Matters of conscience, especially as they relate to the First Amendment, dictate certain situations when citizens decide to not follow and/or disobey unjust laws. Interestingly, dissent in the form of collective actions of conscience (refusing to pay taxes, boycotting specific products, and armed resistance) among approximately one third of American colonists who fought for independence.Tree of Liberty 03

The Constitution was the result of a point in time that the Founding Fathers and Framers identified of a line they could not cross. They could not comply in good conscience– it would be immoral to comply– with the laws of a corrupt and tyrannical government. Christians joined them, citing New Testament directives, identifying that they also must only “obey God rather than men.”christianity

They recognized they could not selectively disobey certain laws because the government itself could not be obeyed. They needed a new government. Rebellion and resistance were required because the ruling authorities had rebelled against God. The government had not only violated basic principles of justice but also had squandered God-given human rights, rendering itself illegitimate.

Thomas Jefferson asserted:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long Established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, Accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

“But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations,  pursuing invariably the same object, evidences a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

Jefferson also said, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The Shall Nots were imperative to the Founders– they wanted to ensure that if Congress violated them the people had just cause to rebel.

two ways to enslave a nation theBible moral people John-Adams-Quote-Liberty-Lost1 John-Adams-Poster-Principles-of-Freedom JohnAdamsFaithQuote4 freedom democracy freedom combo 2

Bill of Rights’ Most Important Liberty: Religion


waving flagWritten by Bethany Blankley

John-Adams-Quote-Liberty-Lost1

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, listed non-negotiable constitutionally guaranteed freedoms in specific order, unchanged since 1791. James Madison, its chief architect, listed freedom of religion first; then speech, press, assembly, petition, right to keep and bear arms, and freedom from forced quartering of military members in one’s home.

Freedom from civil government overreach and interference was essential to establishing sustainable civil order and a just rule of law; the first ten amendments — only 468 words — were added to protect what the founders considered “preexisting rights” from federal government “encroachment.”

Freedom of religion was un-mistakenly listed as the first freedom of the Bill of Rights. And the term “religion” was well understood from its original context derived from the State of Virginia’s Bill of Rights. In Article 1, Section 16, Virginia’s Bill of Rights defines “religion” as “the duty which we owe to our Creator… the manner of discharging… [of which] can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.”

(Many significant words and phrases used to write the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution were selected from preexisting documents and individual state constitutions’ declaration of rights, which provided more detailed definitions.)

Virginia’s Bill of Rights legally defined “religion” as a means to secure freedom from government coercion, which enabled a foundational protection for other freedoms. The Bill of Rights, by defining religion, allows people to believe and act by “reason or conviction” without fear of being coerced to violate their “dictates of conscience.” In this way, religion is jurisdictional– the Bill of Rights ensures that the government cannot force a citizen to violate his/her conscience.AAA02

James Madison articulated in Memorial and Remonstrance:

“The Religion … of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as they may indicate. This right in its nature is an unalienable right. It is unalienable; because the opinions of men … cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also; because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. … This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”GOD

Madison believed that citizens were first “subject[s] of the Great Governor of the Universe,” who must first make his/her “allegiance to the Universal Sovereign” before they could consider being a “member of Civil Society.”ONE NATION

He considered religion first and foremost “immune” from any and all civil authorities. The wording used for the First Amendment’s two religion clauses were specifically straightforward: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” All matters of religion were exempted from civil authority.

Madison asserted:

“In matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.”

want_rel_liberty_rAs a legal and jurisdictional matter, Madison asserted that all men are first subject to God as an immutable fact based on the Christian worldview (Mark 12:17, Psalm 24:1). It was imperative to specify that no government could ever have authority over one’s relationship with God. Understanding that even governmental authority itself originates from God (Romans 13:1) — moral standards could not be mutually exclusive from rule of law.

Furthermore, freedom of conscience, under the jurisdiction of freedom of religion, established the next four freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. They include freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble, and freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These four freedoms granted constitutional security for “residual sovereignty” of the people, not the government. The Bill of Rights ensured freedom of religion as the foundation for all other liberties. No other amendments were possible if freedom of religion had not first been guaranteed as an unalienable right.One Nation Under God

Bethany Blankley; http://BethanyBlankley.com

Bethany Blankley is a political analyst for Fox News Radio and has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. She writes about political, cultural, and religious issues in America. She worked on Capitol Hill for four U.S. Senators and one U.S. Congressman, for a former New York governor, and for several non-profits. She earned her masters degree in theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland and her bachelors degree in politics from the University of Maryland. Follow her @bethanyblankley & BethanyBlankley.com.049590d9aa5e45170821a5ba6f11ac12  SCOTUS Death lost forever liberty 

freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: