What in the world did the left think would happen? When Kathy Griffin posed for a photo with “Trump’s bloody head”, that sent a message. And the twisted version of “Julius Caesar” that is currently being put on by a New York theater group in which a character meant to closely resemble Donald Trump is brutally assassinated sends a message. At any time of the day, you can find leftist radicals openly discussing violence against Trump and Republicans on Facebook and Twitter, and groups like Antifa have been employing extremely violent tactics ever since the Inauguration. So it is not much of a surprise that a huge Bernie Sanders supporter decided that it would be a good idea to try to mow down Republican members of Congress as they were practicing for an upcoming charity baseball game on Wednesday. 66-year-old James T. Hodgkinson was simply the product of a political movement that is absolutely seething with hate.
This is not a game. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was shot in the hip, and four others were injured. You can see some footage of Scalise being taken to an ambulance here. When Hodgkinson arrived at the practice field, he specifically asked which party was using the practice field at that moment…
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) recounted an “odd” encounter he had as he was leaving the field just minutes before the shooting: “There was a guy that walked up to us that was asking whether it was Republicans or Democrats out there, and it was just a little odd,” DeSantis told Fox News.
According to news reports, Hodgkinson fired dozens of shots. This wasn’t a case of targeting a particular individual. Rather, it was obvious that he intended to kill as many Republicans as he possibly could.
I hate to say this, but it is likely that this is just the beginning of the violence by the radical left.
So what would make a 66-year-old man suddenly snap like this?
His Facebook page has now been taken down, but when it was up Hodgkinson had an enormous photo of Bernie Sanders as his banner image. And it turns out that he was a huge fan of Rachel Maddow…
So, where did Hodgkinson draw inspiration for his “progressive” political beliefs? Well, according to a letter to the editor published in the “Belleville News-Democrat” in July 2012, Hodgkinson’s favorite TV show was MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show.”
What you consistently feed your mind determines what you eventually become, and this case is a perfect example. On Facebook, Hodgkinson regularly shared his hate-filled beliefs…
In a March 22 Facebook post, Hodgkinson, who turned his ire against Trump, who he described as a “traitor.”
“Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy,” he said. “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
In a post earlier this week, the suspect highlighted a campaign calling for the president’s impeachment.
“Trump is Guilty & Should Go to Prison for Treason,” Hodgkinson wrote.
And just check out some of the Facebook groups that Hodgkinson belonged to…
▪ “The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans”
▪ “Donald Trump is not my President”
▪ “President Bernie Sanders”
▪ “Illinois Berners United to Resist Trump”
▪ “Boycott the Republican Party”
▪ “Expose Republican Fraud”
▪ “Terminate the Republican Party”
The hate-filled ideology of the left is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and the only thing all of this violence is going to do is to drive the American people away from their cause.
I must say that I agreed with U.S. Representative Steve King 100 percent when he told reporters that “violence is appearing in the streets”, and that it is “coming from the left”…
“America has been divided,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who, in suit and tie, stopped by the crime scene to pray and was viscerally angry about his colleagues being attacked. “And the center of America is disappearing, and the violence is appearing in the streets, and it’s coming from the left.”
And of course, there has been a pattern of violence against Republican lawmakers in recent months. The following compilation comes from Natural News…
Last month, as noted by The Daily Caller, GOP Rep. Tom Garrett’s town halls were replete with heavy security and police presence after he and his family were repeatedly threatened with death. “This is how we’re going to kill your wife,” some disgusting coward wrote, Garrett told Politico.
Also last month, Tennessee police arrested and charged a 35-year-old woman, Wendi Wright, with felonious reckless endangerment after she allegedly attempted to run GOP Rep. David Kustoff off the road following a raucous town hall event featuring the Republican health care legislation.
That same day, North Dakota police escorted a man out of a town hall meeting hosted by Rep. Kevin Cramer after a man became physical with him, shoving a fistful of dollars into Cramer’s shirt collar.
I almost didn’t want my wife to see what happened in Alexandria this morning, because I am very, very strongly considering running for Congress here in Idaho.
I couldn’t help but think that it could have been me out on that baseball field.
It would be naive to think that more Republican lawmakers won’t be targeted. Just like radical Islam, the radical left in this country will never be satisfied until they completely eradicate our way of life. The radical left uses tools such as threats, violence and intimidation because they simply do not have the ammunition to win in the marketplace of ideas. And so anyone that tries to stand up to them will become a potential target.
But if we just sit back and do nothing, they will win by default.
In the end, Hodgkinson and others like him will fail. Because every time they strike us, all they are doing is waking up a sleeping giant called “the American people”. We will not bend, we will not bow, and we will not break, and no matter how violent they become our resolve will not waver.
Ever since the very beginning of our nation, Americans have had to stand up against tyranny, and we aren’t going to back down now.
Article reposted with permission from The Economic Collapse Blog
You may have heard that last Monday, Colgate University, in lovely New York State, went into lockdown over an active shooter incident.
Oh, you didn’t hear? Maybe that’s because was there was no active shooter on the campus of Colgate University. As defined by the federal government, an active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.
Sure, there was a call placed to campus security regarding a sighting. “Shortly after 8 p.m. Monday, two students reported seeing a shirtless black man running in the rain carrying his shirt and phone in one hand, and what appeared to be a weapon in his other hand. He was running into a campus building,” wrote Syracuse.com.
So it is night time – it’s pouring down rain, and a man is running. Whoever called in the report must have been Clint Barton – Hawkeye from Marvel’s Avengers.
Evidently, the report was almost entirely accurate, so bully for the witnesses. There was but one thing the witnesses described incorrectly. The shirtless black man was armed with a GLUE gun and was rushing into the building to complete an art project that was due.
For this, the entire Colgate campus went into a four hour lockdown, as campus security, local police, and a SWAT team went building to building. There was even report of a tank being present – although it more likely an MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle that more and more police departments are deploying for these types of situations.
Since the incident, the president of Colgate, Brian Casey, has placed Bill Ferguson, head of campus security, on administrative leave pending investigation, for it was Ferguson who apparently called the student an “active shooter.”
However, this time it really isn’t about a gun. It’s about a black man with a gun.
The president of Colgate is trying to paint the security director, Bill Ferguson, as a racist – as if the only reason he called it at active shooter incident, was because the kid holding the glue gun was a shirtless black man.
Now I don’t defend Ferguson. He may be a flaming racist. But I’ll bet, neither does the University President. Actually, quite the opposite. Seems to me they would have probably discovered that already – that is, if he were/is a racist.
Yet what is this security director, or any campus security director, to do these days. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. With the hypersensitivity towards scary guns by many snowflake students, faculty, and administrators on college campuses today, security is more likely to overreact than under react.
Did Ferguson overreact? Absolutely. Did/does he not understand the difference between merely being armed and being an active shooter? Possibly. But regardless, Ferguson is being made the scapegoat.
The following day, President Casey released a scathing email, not about guns for a change, but as it usually comes back to these days, racism. Of course it does.
“It is important that we understand the role that implicit racial bias had in the initial reporting of and responses to the events of last night. I want to make sure we speak with those who made and received the initial report to understand the role this played. More egregiously, perhaps, was the effect profiling had on the response of safety officers and other university offices to these events,” Casey wrote.
Oh great. Just throw everyone under the bus, why don’t you.
Here we go again. It is astonishing just how many liberals (and you know this president is) have this sixth sense, to peer into another’s soul to see “implicit racial bias.” As we know, or at least as is implied by Casey, that if this were a shirtless white man running into a campus building holding what was described as a gun, it never would have been called in. Or if it were, Ferguson would have just said, “Oh, it’s a white guy? That’s okay then. Go back to sleep.”
Of course, all this could have been avoided if the shirtless black student would have obtained a concealed-carry glue-gun permit – although in New York, those are probably difficult to obtain. But at least that way he wouldn’t be seen brandishing it about.
An Oregon State Republican senator is advancing a bill that would expand the number of people who would be prohibited from purchasing guns and require some who are in possession of guns “to hand over any guns in their possession.”
Oregon State Senator Brian Boquist (R-Dallas) lost his stepson, a Navy veteran, to suicide, and now, instead of speaking out against more unconstitutional wars and seeking to help veterans, which figures show commit suicide 22 times every day, he is pushing a bill that would infringe on the rights of the people he was elected to serve.
Three bills were before the Senate Committee on Judiciary on Monday, all of them had to do with firearm regulations. Those bills were:
SB 764 Directs Department of State Police to study reasons for certain denials of concealed handgun license applications and report results to interim committees of Legislative Assembly related to judiciary on or before February 1, 2019.
SB 797 Prohibits transfer of firearm by gun dealer or private party if Department of State Police is unable to determine whether recipient is qualified to receive firearm.
SB 868 Creates process for obtaining extreme risk protection order prohibiting person from possessing firearms when court finds that person presents imminent risk, or risk in foreseeable future, of suicide or causing injury to other persons.
Boquist is pushing SB868 and claims it is constitutional. He waved about a pocket-sized constitution and said, “It’s easy to wave your book around.”
“When the Supreme Court and other people say it’s constitutional, that’s the law of the land,” he added.
That’s not entirely true. I’m sure he would probably disagree with Roe v. Wade or Obamacare. Neither are constitutional and neither should be considered the law of the land. Additionally redefining marriage is neither the “law of the land” nor an authority given to the central government in the constitution. All legislative authority is given to Congress, not the courts.
During the hearings, Governor Kate Brown gave appeal to emotions in their attack on the right to keep and bear arms and the issue of due process. She spoke about her thoughts that these bills could have helped prevent the Umpqua Community College shooting in 2015 and the recent Gresham shooting.
“I cannot imagine the heartache the family is going through,” Brown said. “And I extend my sincere condolences. This is absolutely unacceptable. In Oregon, we can do better. Violence answers nothing, offers nothing, solves nothing.”
These pieces of paper would not have stopped either of those shootings from taking place. By the way, Governor Brown should tell the Oregon State Police that “Violence answers nothing, offers nothing, solves nothing” concerning their blatant murder of LaVoy Finicum in January 2016. She should include Finicum’s widow in that little conversation too.
The particular bill that Boquist is pushing would allow family members to obtain a court order to not only prevent a person, who they claim might show signs of wanting to commit suicide or hurt other people, from obtaining a gun for a full year. Additionally, the bill would require that person must turn over any firearms they own.
There is obvious logical problems with formulating this bill to stop suicides or attacking other people. It doesn’t remove knives, drugs, or anything else that one could use to commit suicide or attack someone else with. It’s simply an emotionally driven anti-gun bill, no matter what Senator Boquist says.
Keely Hopkins, a lobbyist with the National Rifle Association, said, “This bill allows for a protective order to remove your Second Amendment rights, not because of a criminal conviction, but based on third-party allegations using an evidentiary standard that falls far below what’s normally required for the removing of fundamental rights.”
That, my friends, is why legislation should never be written based on emotion, furthermore, a God-given right is not to be regulated in such a fashion.
Boquist contacted Breitbart regarding his bill. “On April 19, Senator Brian Boquist informed Breitbart News that SB 868 went through numerous drafts and the legislation allowing a judge to prohibit gun purchases/gun possession will now be contained in SB 719,” wrote Awr Hawkins.
While I sympathize with Senator Boquist in the loss of his son, infringing on other people’s rights is not what needs to be done here. I suggest he and those supporting this bill take time away from political office and head down to his local VFW and offer some genuine service to our veterans and see how he can help there.
The Democrats are determined to keep Americans defenseless in the face of rising Muslim migrant crime and jihad. Party of Treason indeed.
“Democrat Group Plans $25 Million Ad Campaign To Fight Concealed Carry,” by Phillip Stucky, Daily Caller, April 10, 2017:
A democratic pro-gun control group plans to spend up to $25 million in ads during the 2018 midterms against concealed carry legislation.
Everytown for Gun Safety was founded by former Republican mayor of New York City Mike Bloomberg. The group also announced several key hires ahead of the election, and plans to focus the majority of its attention in state legislature races, Politico reports. Michael Bloomberg, former Republican mayor of New York City, founded the group.
“This is a line in the sand on this issue, there’s no question about it,” Everytown president John Feinblatt told Politico. “The NRA wants to normalize carrying guns in public. It’s not where the American public is. We’re putting people on notice today that we’re watching … and that we expect to hold people accountable.”…
Article reposted with permission from PamelaGeller.com
Virginia Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe just put a lot of innocent lives in his state at risk. On Friday, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed victims of domestic violence, who have a protective order to carry a firearm concealed for up to 45 days without a permit.
House Bill 1852 would recognize that a person who has a protective order and is over 21 years of age to carry their gun concealed for up to 45 days after they receive the order. Additionally, it would give the person another 45 days if they chose to apply for a permanent concealed weapons permit.
The bill passes 63-31 in the house of delegates and 26-214 in the senate.
However, Governor McAuliffe vetoed the bill, which means it will take two-thirds in both houses to override it.
“The bill perpetuates the dangerous fiction that the victims of domestic violence will be safer by arming themselves,” McAuliffe said in a statement. “It would inject firearms into a volatile domestic violence situation, making that situation less safe, not more.”
“In 2014, there were 112 family and intimate-partner related homicides in Virginia,” he added. “Sixty-six of those deaths were with a firearm. I will not allow this bill to become law when too many Virginia women have already fallen victim to firearms violence at the hands of their intimate partner.”
There is a serious problem here. It is not Governor McAuliffe’s responsibility to ensure the safety of these individuals. It is their right and duty to protect themselves. The framers of our Constitution knew this and sought to enshrine those protections in the Second Amendment. Of course, that applies to the central government not infringing upon our rights, but it stems from the Declaration of Independence which says our rights come from our Creator. Therefore, even the states are usurping their authority to restrict and regulate the keeping and bearing of arms.
They are further infringing on that right by requiring that people pay for permission to carry their weapons, open or concealed.
Several pro-gun groups attacked the governor over his veto.
“Governor McAuliffe claims we don’t need to introduce a gun into a ‘volatile situation,’ where there is a protective order in place,” Philip Van Cleave, the Virginia Citizens Defense League’s president, told the Washington Free Beacon. “He’s completely wrong. That situation is exactly where we DO want to introduce a firearm. Knowledge that the victim is armed is a great incentive for the aggressor to stay away.”
“Protective orders really enrage the aggressor and the vetoed bill would have allowed the victim to be fully armed, yet in a discreet manner, even during those initial 48 hours,” he said. “Sadly, the governor’s veto will likely cost innocent lives.”
It is my opinion that Governor McAuliffe be held criminally negligent for any persons with a protective order who are injured or killed by those which the order is against.
Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has written a letter to President Donald Trump, asking him to pardon two Kansans, whom the Obama administration’s policies abused their rights protected under both the US Constitution’s Second Amendment, as well as the Second Amendment Protection Act of Kansas.
The letter was written by Brownback in February on behalf of Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler.
“In November 2016, two Kansans — Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler — were convicted of alleged federal firearms violations in the U.S. District Court of Kansas in Wichita,” Brownback wrote. ” The charges against Cox and Kettler were in conflict with our State’s Second Amendment Protection Act, upon which these citizens relied. Their prosecutions were initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice during the administration of President Obama.”
“Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder previously had sought to undermine the Second Amendment rights of Kansans by attacking the Second Amendment Protection Act at the time of its enactment. The unfair prosecutions of Cox and Kettler were no doubt an attempt to further this affront to the State of Kansas and to deter Kansans from the exercise of their constitutional rights. Unfortunately, Cox and Kettler were the unwitting victims in this overreaching federal attempt to make and example of someone.”
I agree. It is tremendously hypocritical as Eric Holder was, at the time, found to be in contempt of Congress for withholding information from the people concerning the unconstitutional ATF, under his oversight, to conduct illegal gun trafficking to Mexican drug cartels in Operation Fast and Furious.
“I am hereby requesting that you issue a full and complete pardon of Cox and Kettler as to these felony convictions.,” pled with President Trump. “They should not be subjected to further legal proceedings on these matters, as to which they recently were sentenced to probation, and they should be allowed to return to their former lives. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and your support of the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans.”
The Second Amendment ends by stating that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Furthermore, our Constitution does not provide authority to the Congress to legislate against the manufacturing of guns or suppressors. It simply is not within their scope of authority. That means since there is no legitimate law that can be made under our Constitution regarding this matter, Eric Holder and his Justice Department were administering tyranny against these two men, not justice.
The AP reported on the men being found guilty back in February.
A federal judge spared from prison two Kansas men convicted of federal firearms violations after taking into account Monday their mistaken belief that a Kansas law can shield from federal prosecution anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state.
The sentence handed down by U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten still leaves intact the federal felony convictions against Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler, both of Chanute, Kansas. Cox, 45, was given two years of supervised probation, and Kettler, 28, got one year of supervised probation.
Jurors in November returned eight guilty verdicts against Cox, the owner of the now-closed Tough Guys gun store in Chanute, under the National Firearms Act for illegally making and marketing unregistered firearms, including a short-barreled rifle and gun silencers. Kettler was found guilty on one count of possession of an unregistered silencer.
As convicted felons, neither man is allowed to own or possess a firearm.
So, President Trump, you say you are all for the Second Amendment, and people have believed you. Now, it’s time for you to step up and put your money where your mouth is. As president, you are given authority to issue a pardon for these men based on the plain language of the Second Amendment that the Holder/Obama Justice Department acted unlawfully to prosecute these men. You have the authority per our Constitution, to simply set them free. Will you do so?
On Thursday, the House of Representatives will consider a bill that will restore the rights of over quarter of our nation’s veterans to keep and bear arms that were illegally infringed upon during the Obama administration.
HR 1181, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, will head to the floor of the House of Representatives on Thursday. This bill seeks to “amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes.”
The text of the bill states:
SEC. 2. CONDITIONS FOR TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PERSONS AS ADJUDICATED MENTALLY INCOMPETENT FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.
“§ 5501B. Conditions for treatment of certain persons as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes
“Notwithstanding any determination made by the Secretary under section 5501A of this title, in any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under this title, a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness shall not be considered adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18 without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.”.
(b) Clerical Amendment.—The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 55 of such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5501A the following new item:
While this is good in many respects, the main problem I have with the government determining who is mentally ill and who is of sound mind is that there will always be political party ideology that determines that. Our Constitution was very specific regarding how one forfeits their rights. It is contained in the Fifth Amendment and there is no mention of mental stability, but rather conviction of a crime.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Due process of law is the issue, and since the right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed, according to the Second Amendment, Congress has no business writing any law for any reason to restrict that right, especially for veterans who have served to defend those rights.
According to Gun Owners of America, “257,000 veterans who have experienced trauma in Vietnam, or Sarajevo, or Kabul, or Mosul, have made the mistake of seeking counseling from the Department of Veterans Affairs. VA psychiatrists, with no due process whatsoever, then proceeded to appoint a ‘guardian’ over the finances of these law-abiding veterans — and have used this appointment as an excuse to send their names to the NICS secret ‘gun ban list’ in West Virginia.”
“In some cases, police have arrived at their homes to take away the guns they already have,” writes GOA’s Director of Operations John Velleco. “And those veterans who have kept a single gun for hunting or self-defense risk a felony conviction and a decade in prison.”
This is happening to our veterans simply for honorably serving their country at the behest of cowards and criminals like Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah.
This bill does seek to turn the tables for our veterans.
According to GOA:
First, under H.R. 1181, a veteran cannot legally have his gun rights taken away without a finding by a judge, magistrate or judicial authority.
This makes the bill far better than some of its counterparts — which have frequently allowed an administrative board or commission to take away veterans’ constitutional rights.
Second, under H.R. 1181, a veteran can lose his guns ONLY if he is a danger to himself or others. No more can a veteran lose his constitutional rights because a guardian is administering his checkbook.
Third, because of these two provisions, we believe the 257,000 law-abiding veterans who have unlawfully had their rights taken away should have them restored — automatically.
Please contact your representative and encourage them to sponsor the bill. After all, veterans have served to defend you. Isn’t this the least we can do? Then, contact your senator to see that it makes its way through in the Senate.
Illinois State Senator Julie Morrison (D-29)has proposed a bill that would allow the government to confiscate firearms from gun owners without any due process.
According to SB 1291’s summary:
[The bill] provides that the petition shall also describe the type, and location of any firearm or firearms presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the respondent. Provides that the petitioner may be a family member of the respondent or a law enforcement officer, who files a petition alleging that the respondent poses a danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. Establishes factors that the court must consider before issuing a lethal violence order of protection. Provides for the issuance of ex parte orders and one year orders.
Awr Hawkins comments, “SB 1291 would create a ‘Lethal Order of Protection’ whereby the firearms of Illinois residents could be confiscated if a family member or ‘law officer’ files a petition stating the gun owner ‘poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having … [a firearm] in his or her custody or control.’”
The bill also shamelessly does not even allow the gun owner to be present and a mere accusation can be leveled to remove his rights to own a gun, something that is supposed to be protected.
Imagine if a family member or a police officer had it in for you. In the blink of an eye, you could be stripped of your rights without any due process simply because someone accused you of something with absolutely no evidence to validate the claim.
This is simply another attack on the rights of the people of Illinois by another Communist thinking representative. These people have not learned one thing about their tyrannical gun confiscation laws already which leave thousands wounded and hundreds dead every year and thousands more vulnerable to the criminal element in Illinois, including some representatives in the city of Chicago.
The right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed, not only by the central government, but by any government, as the rights are acknowledged as coming from our Creator in the Declaration of Independence.
The perpetrator in the latest U.S. gun rampage is Esteban Santiago, a 26-year-old Iraq war veteran, who, just one month ago, told Federal Bureau of Investigation agents that he believed U.S. spies were controlling his mind. While blaming government mind-control is not a suitable alibi for many, I believe government gun control is.
Following the tragic shooting in Ft. Lauderdale on Friday, Barack Obama told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, “We’re heartbroken for families who have been affected,” and, “These tragedies have happened far too often during the eight years that I’ve been president.”
Despite numerous attempts by this administration, their cronies, and their ilk to eradicate what the Second Amendment acknowledges as the God-given right to self defense and arms, Obama has admitted his own failures to protect American citizens.
So, since government gun control is an absolute failure, I thought I would call on more government-control, NOT more gun-control. We need to regulate the government from its insubordination to its God-given duty of “securing the rights of the people.” This insubordination called “gun control” has proven to be far more lethal to American life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than the criminals from which it claims to protect.
I know this to be a fact: the plurality of American people are disgusted with the attempts of government to dominate their right to self defense. They have not only voted at the ballot box, but, convincingly, their wallets are talking. Gun manufacturers and retail stores cannot keep up with the demand for guns and ammo. Even the once extremely common .22 rim fire ammunition is as scarce as a dollar in the social security trust fund.
The promulgation of emotional ignorance has always been the tool to convince people to give up this right of self-preservation in favor of trusting that criminals will give up their crime and that government can boundlessly protect you.
As seen in every single mass shooting, the government is completely incapable of protecting the citizenry from these kinds of attacks. If the people do not protect themselves, there is no protection. All “gun-control” laws do is fight or obstruct the people from protecting themselves. This is why state leaders have an obligation to declare any and all federal gun-control laws to be null and void and boldly declare to the people of their states that they will honor and protect the people’s right and duty to defend themselves.
Agreeing with this godly precedent and our Second Amendment, Declaration signer Richard Henry Lee stated, “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.” (Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788)
I believe today more than ever that our leaders should be advocating, endorsing, and sponsoring the protection of our God-given right to life, liberty, and property.
Like John Kennedy I believe that, “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”
Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.
If we were to believe the anti-gun lobby, we would expect to see several cities in our country decline in gun violence. According to these lobbies, we have gun violence because we have guns. The ready and legal access to guns allow criminals to obtain and use guns against the innocent.
So, restricting legal access to guns should have the opposite effect. This is only logical. If more gun restrictions cause increased gun-violence, then fewer restrictions should decrease the same. But Chicago shows us that this theory does not stand-up to reality.
Christian News reports:
2016 was one of the most violent years in history for residents of Chicago, as year-end figures show that there were 762 homicides and 3,550 shooting incidents—the highest murder level since 1996.
“It’s no secret that the city of Chicago had its fair share of challenges in 2016,” Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie Johnson said in a press conference on Sunday.
“We all have a vested interest in reducing this gun violence,” Johnson said. “It’s not okay and it’s not normal. When I go home and my neighbors see me, they are constantly asking, ‘What can we do to reduce this gun violence?’”
The problem is that the leadership in the city is committed, almost like a suicide pact, to the idea that guns themselves are a problem. The very existence of the gun trade in and around the city is the cause, but this is far from the problem.
The problem lies in the fact that places like Chicago have little or no hope. The reason for this loss of hope is because they have turned from the truth. They cannot speak of the truth in their public schools, and many of the parents are happy that it is that way.
The result is the production of wicked boys and girls who are encouraged in their wickedness and, therefore, become wicked men and women. These men and women are not taught to reason, so they become unreasoning animals.
Chicago has turned into what Paul warned his protégé Timothy was coming to the Roman Empire (2 Tim. 3:2-5).
The City of Chicago has a heart problem and not a gun problem.
Article posted with permission from Constitution.com
The window is closing on freedom in the Golden State, as liberal government leaders and increasingly bureaucratic laws are being used to strip away the rights of the people.
Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a slew of new laws, seen by many as unconstitutional, that will make it incrementally more difficult for Californians to keep and bear arms.
But in response to new restrictions on owning so-called “assault weapons” and certain types of semi-automatic firearms, millions are lining up to make purchases during the last legal time frame to do so.
While the state tramples on freedom and bites back at the spirit of the founders who abhorred such bureaucratic tyranny, these patriots are sending a message that they won’t take it lying down, and will do all they can to hold onto their American heritage – and pass it down to future generations.
As of today, people can no longer legal purchase under the new laws taking effect, due to the 10-day waiting period law already in place.
via The Blaze:
Gun sales in California have skyrocketed during the second half of 2016 after California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed into law earlier this year a sweeping new set of gun control laws that are set to take effect Jan. 1.
Brown signed into law six measures, including one that requires California citizens to allow the government to confiscate their “high capacity” magazines, a law that requires a background check for ammunition sales, in addition to a “bullet button law.”
So-called bullet buttons are devices on semi-automatic rifles that allow a user to easily eject and insert a new magazine. You will still be able to own rifles that have a bullet button in California, but you’ll no longer be able to purchase a firearm that has one, according to the Los Angeles Times.
However, citizens who own firearms with the “bullet button” will have one year to register the gun with the state of California as an “assault weapon.”
The new guns laws have led to a run on firearms in California…Joshua Deaser, the owner of Just Guns in Sacramento, told the Times, “When Gov. Brown signed that bill, the first 30 days in July were just insane. It died down for a while but now we are back with everyone trying to get what they can before the end of the year.”
“We have people lined up out the door and around the block,” Terry McGuire, owner of the Get Loaded gun store in San Bernardino, added.
And they aren’t stopping there.
Breitbart is reporting that Californian lawmakers are planning an attempt at all-out ban of semi-automatic weapons in the coming year.
How that will play out remains to be seen, but the continued assault on the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans trapped inside the country’s most populous state:
In a recent conversation with Breitbart News, Gun Owners of California’s (GOC) Sam Paredes told us to be ready for an all-out ban on semi-automatic long guns in California’s coming legislative session.
Paredes suggested the “assault weapons” ban and the “bullet button” ban have both been part of an incremental move…
“These laws are the tip of the iceberg here in California. We expect they are going to introduce legislation to totally ban semi-automatic long guns in California. They will do this because they know we will come up with a new way to beat their latest ban–the ‘bullet button’ ban–if given time.”
Eventually, a chaotic world will attempt to take away all the rights of the individual to self-defense.
— DrSueDVM☤???? (@DrSueDVM) December 21, 2016
f there wasn’t so much push back, it would surely be overnight.
Never mind that it opens up big cities to unrestricted violence and an overall diminished quality of life and access to opportunity.
This is a system that wants control, and to achieve that, they will stop at nothing short of a totally-disarmed population.
Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan
On November 4th, the Fiscal Times posted an article filled with hope for gun-grabbers. They began by first bemoaning that the federal legislature, controlled by those waskily Wepublicans, has dropped the ball on gun control. Naturally, the reason is because all republicans are beholden to the NRA and the gun lobby – not due to the second most important Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. No – that can’t be it.
But the silver lining, according to the Times, is that some States have the opportunity on election day to usurp the feds, and more importantly the Constitution, and pass their own gun restrictions, despite the fact that the Second Amendment holds preeminence over all state gun laws. When has this ever mattered to democrats?
The article states that four such States have their chance to act unconstitutionally. These are California, Maine, Nevada, and Washington state. Of course, this article wouldn’t state such a thing – I’m just pointing out what the true intent of their ballot initiatives are.
As Maine is right next door, I decided I would concentrate on it. Lucky for me, one of the anti-gun nuts the Times quotes is from Maine.
“Unfortunately, Congress hasn’t shown a willingness to act,” Nick Wilson, executive director of the Maine Gun Safety Coalition, said in an interview on Thursday. “Until we see a change in Congress, then we’re going to have to do it at the state level.”
Not they I expect the Fiscal Times or anyone they quote to mention it, but neither the word Constitution nor the Second Amendment ever appears. It’s as if they don’t exist – which is intentional.
The Maine Gun Safety website boldly exclaims on its homepage to: “Vote Yes on Question 3 on November 8!”
The blurb explains that, “Maine Gun Safety Coalition (MGSC) is responsible for successfully passing background checks legislation in the House and Senate in June 2013, prior to being vetoed by Governor LePage. We are currently championing Question 3, a statewide referendum closing the private sale loophole on the November 2016 ballot. The unrestricted sale of guns in Maine increases the risk of homicide, domestic violence deaths, suicides, and law enforcement injuries.”
Well, I guess that was tough break in 2013, not only for MGSC, but also for the residents of Maine, who since have undoubtedly had to endure a tragic uptick in “homicide, domestic violence deaths, suicides, and law enforcement injuries.”
Let us take a look at how Maine has fared since that 2013 veto of “common sense gun legislation.”
In July of this year, Maine was ranked the number one most peaceful state in the Union, “despite having almost no restriction on gun ownership.” 24/7 Wall St. generated an index to rank the peacefulness of each U.S. state. “States with high violent crime and homicide rates, as well as high estimated small arms ownership and high incarceration rates were identified as less peaceful, while states with lower incidences of these factors were more peaceful. According to our index, Maine is the most peaceful state, while Louisiana is the least peaceful.”
In practically all reasonable accountings of gun violence and violent crime, Maine has ranked either 49 or 50 out of 50 states, since that fateful day in 2013. This despite the fact that Maine is ranked number two in the nation for gun ownership per capita.
In fact, it has gotten worse for the gun grabbers in Maine, as the State just passed a law last year, allowing residents to carry open or concealed without a permit.
For those who revere the Second Amendment, and the safety of you and loved ones, Maine is Nirvana. Here are some which will drive the left crazy. Handgun ownership is unrestricted, no permit or license required. Ditto – Rifle and Shotgun ownership. Same goes for semi-automatic “assault weapon” ownership – unrestricted: no permit or license required. Even machine gun ownership has no state restrictions, but must comply with federal laws.
So, once again, the left is proven wrong regarding guns –and everything else they wish to control. As we on the right have claimed, and how the data always confirms – more guns do not equal more violence, as long as the good guys are allowed to own and carry them.
This could almost be the Joke of the Day – but it’s not. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s chosen one for the White House, has a plan to fight terrorism in America and it’s basically this: Dismantle the Second Amendment.
As Robert Spencer in Jihad Watch noted, Breitbart’s AWR Hawkins picked up on Clinton’s interesting – to say the least – take on what should be done to keep at bay terrorists like the radical Islamists who attacked recently in New York and New Jersey.
She made these remarks to AARP Bulletin:
“In response to questions from AARP Bulletin, Hillary Clinton made clear her position that to be successful, policies for ending terrorism must include gun control for all Americans.
“AARP Bulletin asked, ‘What would you do to address terrorism?’”
And her reply? Wait for it …
That sound you hear is the campaign camp of Donald Trump laughing. But here it is, again – as posted on Jihad Watch:
“Well, these are legitimate fears. I believe that people are rightly concerned about violence. Terrorism is part of that violence, and we have to do the best job we can to keep America safe. So I’ve laid out a very comprehensive plan about taking on the terrorists, going after them where they operate, doing everything we can to take away their territories so they can’t mastermind attacks from afar. But we also have to go after them online because that is where they recruit, radicalize and direct attacks. And we need to do a better job of getting there early, rooting out people who are vulnerable and preventing that from happening.”
That’s the lead-up. Now for the punch line.
Jihad Watch goes on:
“But I’m looking at violence broadly. … It’s also why I’ve advocated gun-safety reform, like comprehensive background checks, closing the gun-show loophole, closing the online loophole—because, you know, it’s not only terrorists we need to be worried about. Terrorism is part of it, but gun violence kills 33,000 Americans a year. … We’ve got to get serious about stemming violence and terrorism in every way we can….”
And so on and so forth. You get the picture.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Trump is gaining steadily in the polls, and will win the White House come November.
Article reposted with permission from PamelaGeller.com
Isoroku Yamamoto was the fleet admiral of the Japanese Imperial Navy during World War II and was reportedly quoted as saying that you cannot invade the mainland of the United States because “there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
It is true that Americans own some 265 million guns nationwide at last count, so Yamamoto was probably not too far off about the amount of firearms Americans have at their disposal.
But a new survey from Harvard/Northeastern suggests that just because we have that many privately owned firearms in America doesn’t necessarily mean that 265 million of us are armed.
According to the survey about 3% of Americans own half of all the guns and they are affectionately referred to as “Super Owners.”
Americans own an estimated 265m guns, more than one gun for every American adult, according to the most definitive portrait of US gun ownership in two decades. But the new survey estimates that 133m of these guns are concentrated in the hands of just 3% of American adults – a group of super-owners who have amassed an average of 17 guns each.
The unpublished Harvard/Northeastern survey result summary, obtained exclusively by the Guardian and the Trace, estimates that America’s gun stock has increased by 70m guns since 1994. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who own guns decreased slightly from 25% to 22%.
The new survey, conducted in 2015 by public health researchers from Harvard and Northeastern universities, also found that the proportion of female gun owners is increasing as fewer men own guns. These women were more likely to own a gun for self-defense than men, and more likely to own a handgun only.
Source: The Guardian
This is the first time we’ve heard of “Super Owners” and we kind of like the designation.
Unfortunately, now that it is out in the open, it’s only a matter of time before we start hearing about “Super Owners” being dangerous to society and the need to disarm them of the majority of their weapons.
Because, you know, who needs 17 guns, right?
Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan
On Friday, September 23rd, at the Cascade Mall in Burlington Washington, there was yet another mass shooting incident where at least four people were killed. The main stream media, in an attempt to hide the truth, reported that the shooter was a Hispanic male when, in fact, he was a Muslim. This is just another in a long line of Islamic attacks against our nation where our government sits idly by and does absolutely nothing to prevent it. Radical Islamists have made their intents to attack soft targets within the U.S. perfectly clear. Clarionproject.org ran an article in February of 2015 exposing the fact that radical Islamists have made specific threats to target U.S. malls and murder innocent Americans in the name of Jihad. Many Americans express outrage and frustration, as they question why our government does nothing about this. At the same time, they also refuse to acknowledge that there may be a more sinister agenda at play. While some people can entertain the idea that these attacks are allowed to occur in order to pass stricter gun control, they fail to see that it may in fact, be more sinister than that. Why on one hand does our government work so feverishly to protect Islam while at the same time plastering pictures of Islamists who commit terror attacks all over the mainstream media? The answer is simple; they want the fear of terrorism at the forefront of our subconscious in order to carry out their agenda.
Congress has, once again, in response to the bombings in New York and New Jersey, as well as the mall stabbing spree in Minnesota, introduced their “no fly, no buy gun control bill.” The shooting spree in Washington will certainly add fuel to this fire, as they aim to add anyone who may be on a terror watch list to the so-called no gun-buy list. It’s worse than that: the proposed bill, which has bipartisan support, would prevent anyone who has been under investigation for suspected ties to terrorists or terrorist activity from buying a gun. Most Americans, assuming that the government is honest and really trying to prevent another attack, think this is a great common sense idea; however, they fail to realize that they themselves may be considered a potential extremist.
In 2009, almost immediately upon President Obama assuming office, the Department of Homeland Security released the following report: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. This report focuses exclusively on people whose political leanings are to the right and alleges that they have the potential to commit acts of violence. The report claims that right wing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first “African-American” president and immediately increased their recruitment efforts in response. After all, right wingers are racist, xenophobic bigots. The report also cites fears of gun rights restrictions, loss of jobs to overseas manufacturers, and increased immigration as reasons why right wingers may suddenly become unhinged and launch lone wolf style terrorist attacks.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.
The problem is that none of this ever happened, as there has been no major right wing terrorist movement. This report was designed to silence all opposition to Barack Obama’s agenda, and when the time came where people were fed up, they would have this to fall back on and label people as potential extremists for being against government. It’s almost as if this report was deliberately released to tell us what they intended to do, and any opposition to it should be suspect. In fact, looking at America today, it is obvious that the only terrorist threat we face comes from left wing radicals that are paid to disrupt and cause chaos, in order to justify the growth of government power. We certainly do not see any “right wingers” organizing and burning down cities, or attacking innocent people and looting stores in the name of social justice or Jihad. Again, these actions are allowed to take place or be purposefully acted out in order to further an agenda, and that agenda involves creating a mental association, otherwise known as association of ideas, in the minds of gullible Americans between terrorism and everyday people. This is why the media always goes into overdrive portraying every mass shooter as just an ordinary guy whom everybody loved until one day, he just snapped for no explainable reason. Think about it a moment: for years, we have seen violent acts carried by radical Islamists, and now, slowly but surely, we are seeing violence being acted out by Americans. How do you describe an association of ideas exactly?
In the book Brainwashing: A Synthesis of the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics, Laventri Beria describes man as nothing more than an animal whose behaviors are easily controlled by stimulus response mechanisms. In other words, the idea is to constantly expose the population to terror and slowly create the association between these acts of terror and other people who may be disgruntled enough to commit acts of violence of their own. Consider the following-
Man is a stimulus-response animal. His entire reasoning capabilities,even his ethics and morals, depend upon stimulus-response machinery. This has long been demonstrated by such Russians as Pavlov, and the principles have long been used in handling the recalcitrant, in training children, and in bringing about a state of optimum behavior on the part of a population.
Having no independent will of his own, Man is easily handled by stimulus-response mechanisms. It is only necessary to install a stimulus into the mental anatomy of Man to have that stimulus reactivate and respond any time an exterior command source calls it into being.
The mechanisms of stimulus-response are easily understood. The body takes pictures of every action in the environment around an individual. When the environment includes brutality. terror, shock, and other such activities, the mental image picture gained contains in itself all the ingredients of the environment. If the individual, himself, was injured during that moment, the injury. itself. will re-manifest when called upon to respond by an exterior command source.
The more Americans witness violent attacks by terrorists, the more they will accept the idea that certain people who may be on a terror watch list shouldn’t buy guns. While none of the violent acts we are witnessing are being carried out by Conservative Republicans, the violence justifies, in the minds of the masses, the restrictions of rights of all people whom they consider to have the potential to commit violent acts. The report on so-called right wing extremism justifies adding people of right wing ideologies to terrorist watch lists based on the idea that right wingers are angry and disgruntled over the possible loss of freedom. That’s the point. The whole agenda revolves around getting the guns out of the hands of those that oppose the left wing agenda. When was the last time you heard anyone on the left refer to people actually committing acts of terror as terrorists? Passage of the no fly, no buy gun control bill could result in millions of innocent people being added to a watch list simply because they have expressed concerns over illegal immigration, gun control, and a loss of American manufacturing. Things which, incidentally, are all coming to fruition now. It isn’t about stopping terrorism, folks – it’s about eliminating any opposition to the left wing agenda.
Article reposted with permission from In Defense of Our Nation
Every time there is a shooting in a public area, there begins this call for gun control. People instinctively turn to the weapon rather than the person. They blame the gun rather than the shooter.
This is undoubtedly going to be the case in the latest shooting in Washington State. And whether the attack was one motivated by love, hate, or religion, the left will ramp up their campaign to punish the innocent.
Washington State Patrol spokesman Sgt. Mark Francis said police were searching for a Hispanic man wearing black and armed with a rifle who was last seen walking toward Interstate 5 near the Cascade Mall in Burlington.
Authorities released a surveillance image of the suspect walking through the store and holding a rifle. Francis said police did not know the gunman’s motive and could not say whether he targeted the victims. He said the ages of the victims appeared to range from their 20s to elderly but had no further identifying information.
This seems to have been localized to one area of the store. There were many other targets the shooter could have shot, but he chose not to kill them. This tells us that the shooting was probably a personal thing. The shooter was after an estranged girlfriend or something of that nature.
Rather than telling everyone that murder is in the hearts of all people and that they should repent, they tell them they are children and try to take their guns. If this act would have been committed with a hammer, would it have generated more than a mention nationally?
Sadly, probably not.
Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com
“I really support everything President Obama said he would do through regulation on guns but we’re going to start the very first day and tackle the gun lobby.” – Hillary Clinton on MSNBC, 4/25/16
There are those who believe that the 2016 presidential election is a once in a generation, existential kind of national election. These folks notice all of the dangers we face and worry that depending on how the vote falls this November, we may soon be a very different nation than we’ve been.
I’m not sure I fit on this worrisome boat, but I do believe that our dearest rights and freedoms are in danger today. The Left has developed a fascist streak unlike any we’ve seen previously in American history, and they believe it to be their duty to destroy our liberty… for our own good, of course.
“The Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.” – Hillary Clinton, The Free Beacon, 10/1/15
Into this caustic climate comes the NRA, an organization wholly devoted to defending the 2nd Amendment from the gun-grabbing left.
The NRA believes that, if elected president, Hillary Clinton would do everything in her power to undermine and repeal the 2nd Amendment. Because of this, they are working hard to unmask her as the anti-freedom fascist she really is.
Their latest ad paints a disturbing picture, reminding all Americans what is really at stake in the upcoming election.
This is the second in the “Don’t Let Hillary Leave You Defenseless” series.
The previous ad covered the disgusting hypocrisy of Clinton’s anti-gun position. Here’s a woman who has lived the last 30+ years of her life surrounded by men with firearms, yet she has the audacity to tell law abiding American citizens that they shouldn’t have the right to use the same tool to defend their families?
If it wasn’t such a serious topic, it’d be laughable.
“When it comes to guns, we have just too many guns.”— Hillary Clinton, USA Today, 4/20/2016
In November, you can actively defend the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. All you have to do is vote AGAINST Hillary Clinton.
Article reposted with permission from Eagle Rising
If you still had any doubts as to why the 2nd Amendment must be protected, and why self defense must be respected as the priority that it is, then just take a look at what happened during the already insane riots taking place in Charlotte.
Despite large cadres of riot cops on scene and North Carolina’s Gov. McCrory declaring of a state of emergency and calling in the National Guard, no one was able to protect the dozens of innocent bystanders who were beaten, attacked, intimidated and knocked over just because of the color of their skin or the fact that they ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Numerous individuals and several journalists were targeted for physical attacks after the protest devolved into riots. At least one white man was dragged into a parking garage and beaten. One of the protesters was shot. Rocks and other objects were thrown, and the entire thing got out of control.
There’s little doubt that the authorities wanted to maintain order, but it wasn’t possible. And people got hurt.
But one person who wasn’t hurt by the violent and temporarily insane mob in downtown Charlotte was this guy:
While it is true that he brandished the weapon illegally according to North Carolina laws, when it came down to a confrontation with the mob, this guy got respect where others caught up in the scene did not.
Despite being angry at the world and lashing out at just about everyone, these protesters respected only those who were prepared to defend themselves.
Here is what North Carolina law stipulates:
- You may not carry a weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, or other demonstration, except for guns carried on a rack in a pickup truck. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-277.2.)
- You may not carry a weapon during civil disorder, riot, or other disturbance involving three or more people. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-288.20.)
Furthermore, he's alive in part because the protesters were NOT violent and did not harm him. They could have.
— Heather Head (@HHeadWrites) September 22, 2016
For the record, concealed carry is legal in NC. Brandishing a weapon at a peaceful protest is not.
— Heather Head (@HHeadWrites) September 22, 2016
No one messed with him. He was concerned with his safety while driving through the chaotic demonstration, and there was no guarantee that he would pass through without harm or interference.
via the Daily Mail:
A video of the alarming moment was posted on social media by writer Heather Head in the midst of the chaos.
‘White dude drives into crowd of peaceful protesters, draws gun, allowed to drive away alive. With my own eyes. #CharlotteProtest,’ she wrote alongside the shocking clip.
People begin swearing and shouting ‘he’s got a gun’ as the car sounds its horn.
The man was reportedly allowed to drive away from the scene.
‘I’m so confused by the people saying he wasn’t [white]. I mean, I didn’t take a DNA sample or anything but I saw a lot more of him than a close-up of his arm, and he looked pretty white bread to me. His pals in the car too,’ Ms Head added when people questioned the man’s race.
In point of fact, the question of the man’s race isn’t settled…
— WiserInTime ひ✘◬ (@WiserInTime) September 22, 2016
But that isn’t the point, or at least it shouldn’t be.
Once someone shouted ‘He has a gun,’ more people gathered around for a potential confrontation. The man opened the door and started to get out, but a police officer appears to convince him to get back inside and move on (the video is not entirely clear).
Ultimately, they decided to make way.
This was a bad situation, and it is unfortunate that so much harm was done last night.
Video of the protester being shot:
This protest crossed the line, with members of the crowd randomly attacking journalists and several white passersby, so the racial motivation was clearly in play, whether or not it was a factor in the incident with the man in the car:
— Nathan Allen (@workwthecoach) September 22, 2016
Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan
It is no surprise that the left is trying to get as many of their policies in place that they can. It is not only expedient, it is also practical. There is a chance that they will not have an opportunity come November. But, the thing that they wish to get done will break their oath. Or will it?
It seems that Nancy Pelosi has forgotten the oath she has taken. She does not seem to know what she is to uphold and protect. Or maybe she is hoping that we forgot.
During attempts to shame House Republican leadership into allowing a vote on more gun control, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi asked on Wednesday how the GOP could ignore laws that could “save 90 lives.”
Also on the 14th, Pelosi tweeted a video that showed her speaking on the House floor, asking the GOP to allow a “gun vote” for the sake of the “children.”
Whose political survival is more important than the lives of these children, of those people in church, of those young people out on a Saturday night, people who go to the movies? Whose political survival is more important than protecting the American people? That’s the oath we take, “to protect and defend,” whether it’s the Constitution, whether it’s protecting our country, national security, our neighborhood security, our personal security.
But, that is not the oath that she has taken. She has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not anything else. It is the Constitution that is to do all the other things she has listed. If she would do that, the rest would take care of itself; it is the way our country was designed to work.
And if the law is passed, she will be breaking her actual oath. Not because she is concerned about her or our neighbor. No, the last thing that Pelosi cares about is your security.
She wants your rights. She thinks that your rights come at the behest of her and people like her. She thinks that you are a fool and that you believe that she wants what’s best for you. Maybe she even believes that is true. But instead of you taking care of yourself and your safety, she wants you to rely on the nanny state to provide for you the things you need.
No, thanks. A free society does not need such protection; we can defend ourselves thanks.
Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com
An astrophysicist, Ranga-Ram Chary, at the European Space Agency’s Planck Space Telescope data center at CalTech says he may have found evidence of alternate or parallel universes by looking back in time to just after the Big Bang, more than thirteen billion years ago.
Then, there is always the possible parallel universe of dark matter. As researchers learn more about dark matter’s complexities, it seems possible that our galaxy lives on top of a shadow galaxy without us even knowing it.
I have often heard it said the universe is so large that anything we can imagine exists somewhere. Taking that as a starting point for a flight of fancy, let’s imagine a parallel universe without Progressives.
We wouldn’t have had the 16th amendment. Therefore, we would still have a land without personal income tax and the Federal Government would have lived on fees and tariffs, as it always did before the Progressives secured a source of money large enough to spend us into oblivion.
We wouldn’t have had the 17th amendment, and the senators would still be selected by the State legislators. This was one of the checks and balances the Founders embedded in the original Constitution to protect the federal nature of the Federal Government. The House represents the people and the Senate was supposed to represent the States.
We wouldn’t have had The Creature from Jekyll Island, the Federal Reserve System, and America’s representative of the international banking cartel. Without the Fed to mismanage the money supply, there would never have been the banking crisis of the early 1930s. This is crisis that set the stage for the re-boot of America’s free economy as a centrally-planned command and control machine used to transform every sector of American life.
We wouldn’t have had Woodrow Wilson to take us into the War to End all Wars that ended up building up the three largest empires in the world and setting the stage of WWII.
We wouldn’t have had FDR to impose fascist economic forms on America extending what would have been a recession into the Great Depression.
We wouldn’t have had JFK to lose his nerve in 1961. Thus, the Castro brothers and their murderous savagery would have fallen with the successful Bay of Pigs invasion.
We wouldn’t have had LBJ to build a Great Society safety net that has become a hammock, entrapping uncounted millions and generations in the snare of dependency.
We wouldn’t have had BHO to fundamentally transform America into a falling empire and a soon-to-be third world backwater.
And we wouldn’t have HRC campaigning for president, as Mrs. Santa Clause promising to give everyone who doesn’t work everything they want while she seeks to take the Second Amendment from the rest of us.
Think about this; look at how our government treats citizens now, as taxing units or dependent voting units, and we are armed to the teeth. Imagine how they will treat us once we are disarmed. Many believe the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.
Just imagine a parallel universe without Progressives. It’s easy if you try.
We’ve all heard the old saying, “you just can’t fix stupid.” Moreover, the expression, “stuck on stupid,” is apt when it comes to some individuals and politicians who refuse to understand the concept of individual unalienable rights bestowed by God – God-given individual unalienable rights. This is most prevalent when one is highlighting the Second Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America.
Enter stage right is Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts. In her response to a tweet by the National Rifle Association (NRA) criticizing Hillary Clinton’s gun control, read confiscation, plans, Watts claimed the NRA’s fight against gun control was, essentially, “an attack on Americans.” Intervening on behalf of Hillary Clinton, Watts responded to a tweet by the NRA that focused on the dangers of a Supreme Court stacked with Clinton nominees.
The NRA tweeted: “The attack on #2A is clear. A Clinton SCOTUS would hack away at our #2A rights.” They ended the tweet with “#Guns” and “#NeverHillary.”
— NRA (@NRA) August 24, 2016
Watts responded: “Attack on Americans clear: [NRA] lobbyists paid millions to hack away at lifesaving gun laws.” Watts ended her tweet by voicing her support for Clinton via the hashtag “#ImWithHer.”
— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) August 29, 2016
Which “lifesaving gun laws” would Shannon Watts be referring? Background checks? Waiting periods? All unconstitutional legislation related to guns? Gun bans existing in US cities? Restrictions on magazine clips, certain types of weapons, etc.? All defeated gun control/confiscation legislation? Anyone who has followed this issue knows that in cities with strict gun control laws, criminals still have guns, commit crimes, and engage in shooting incidences while law-abiding citizens living there have been left defenseless. Peruse the Chicago news on Monday morning to see how many individuals ended up wounded or dead due to “strict gun control” laws.
As Breitbart pointed out, “It is interesting to note that Watts did not argue with the NRA’s key point, namely, that Clinton plans to use the Supreme Court to go after the Second Amendment.” Watts strategically focused on the NRA blatantly declaring that any resistance to gun control is an “attack on Americans.”
Recently, individuals have committed mass shooting incidences after passing universal background checks – the San Bernardino shooter, the Fort Hood attackers, the Aurora movie theater shooter. These individuals passed the universal background check indicating these measures do not work, much less classified as “lifesaving gun laws.” But, this matters not to those who fail to understand that rights are bestowed by God, precede government, and government exists to protect those rights. When expressing this to individuals like Shannon Watts, one might as well be speaking Klingon. However, despite individuals like Watts being “stuck on stupid,” those who uphold the Constitution, embrace God-given individual unalienable rights, and understand government’s responsibility to protect those rights are required to continually “teach” this individuals in an attempt to “fix stupid.”
Ms. Watts, whether you like it or not, there is a God who has been most generous in bestowing upon individuals certain rights that should not be violated – the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being but few of these rights. Despite what you think or want, your opinions and rights do not trump everyone else’s or God’s will.
It’s obvious you care little for God and the Constitution, which recognizes that rights precede government and guarantees those rights from being infringed without due process of law. That being said, the Second Amendment recognizes the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, as the militia is comprised of individual citizens, without government infringing on any measure that could limit that right. Whether you like it or not, God bestowed that right upon every individual and neither you nor government has the right or authority to attempt to remove what has been bestowed by God. You are not God and neither is the government. What God gives is God’s to take away, if He so chooses.
If you do not like guns, are afraid of guns or simply have some irrational feelings about weapons, it is your choice not to keep or bear arms. If you do not mind being defenseless against those who would do you or your family harm or being defenseless against a tyrannical government, again, that is your choice to make. However, you have no leg to stand on when trying to remove that right for others. And, a government that infringes upon any God-given individual unalienable right has usurped their authority, become despotic and tyrannical in nature, and should be replaced by the people who created it.
You see, Ms. Watts, people created this government in order to protect God-given individual unalienable rights. It is a self-evident truth contained in the Declaration of Independence. As such, the authority of government is limited and defined at the federal level. Any governmental legislation infringing on any individual God-given right without due process is unconstitutional. Where the right to keep and bears arms is concerned, government has zero constitutional authority to limit or control that right. You know all of this but choose to continue along the “stupid” path.
Do you think that gun control will stop crime? Nope. It’s already being done in Chicago and other cities and states with no success. Do you think that gun control will mean no one will have guns? Nope, because criminals will always violate the law, no matter what that law is. It’s the reason they are called criminals. The only thing gun control does is remove the right to keep and bear arms from law-abiding citizens, except for certain ones. This is how dictatorial, tyrannical governments operate – inequality under the law.
Removing the right to keep and bear arms from law-abiding citizens only means that police, the military controlled by the government, criminals and body guards for the elite, wealthy, powerful and political figures will have guns. This means that everyone is at the mercy of those who have the guns. It means a de facto police/military state “ruled” by political figures protected by armed guards. Welcome to a dictatorship overseeing a crime ridden former republic. While this may appeal to you, it is not appealing nor even welcomed by many an American citizen.
You, Ma’am, are as much of a traitor as what sits in the Oval Office and what is running for president on the Democrat ticket. By advocating “gun control,” which history has shown leads to confiscation, you are supporting insurrection against the people by an oligarchy. While you may be perfectly content in relinquishing your God-given individual unalienable right, many Americans choose to keep theirs. You have zero right or authority to try to use government as a bully to force your will and the will of your ilk upon the rest of US citizens.
Ms. Watts, you are sorely in need of God and Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. I pray you will come to know God and Jesus; that He will bestow upon your heart all the love, blessings and grace He has. It is only by having a personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ and understanding God’s word can you even begin to fathom what truth, freedom, liberty and justice even is. May God touch your heart and you be bathed in the salvation of Jesus Christ and know His love and grace.
In Paris, Muslim men stalking French women in the Metro is becoming a regular occurrence.
As the below videos show, French women would be better protected if they were allowed to defend themselves with a gun and/or knife.
Attacks occur on the metro platform, train, and escalator. In one recording the assailant wrestles the woman to the floor. Sadly, in these videos witnesses don’t come to the women’s aid, or if they do it’s after the assault occurred.
In the below video, one French woman is kicked by two men, the other is grabbed by another man.
The Joys of Multiculturalism..
— Colleen (@col_nj) August 20, 2016
“Serving alcohol doesn’t mean I’m not following my [religious] duties. I’m doing it because I am a bartender. In Tunisia, I do the same job and I never had any problems.
“I can’t believe that in France, the country of liberty, that I could be attacked like this.”
Life would be quite different for these women if they could defend themselves with a gun. But Parisian gun control laws, as all gun control law, hurt the victims of crimes most.
Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com
Conditions have already been set for society to come unglued.
The rioting, looting, poaching and running to the border for food supplies that has already taken place demonstrates a people who are already stressed to the breaking point. The impact on individual health, and the instability surrounding everyday activities has already shown through, and things are only getting worse.
So, too, has the police state. Socialist President Maduro has many opponents who wish to see his ouster. The nation’s thin dependence on high oil prices has made their economy easy to hack. Unfortunately, the people are paying the price. Maduro must use a strong arm and an iron fist in order to cling to power, just like every other dictator – communist, fascist, socialist or otherwise.
Venezuelan police crushed and chopped up nearly 2,000 shotguns and pistols in a Caracas city square on Wednesday, as the new interior minister relaunched a long-stalled gun control campaign in one of the world’s most crime-ridden countries.
Interior Minister Nestor Reverol said the event marked the renewal of efforts to disarm Venezuelans, through a combination of seizures and a voluntary program to swap guns for electrical goods.
“We are going to bring disarmament and peace,” Reverol [a pro-Maduro former anti-drug tsar accused of drug trafficking corruption] told reporters, while police officers drilled and sawed at rusty shotguns, home made pistols and some newer weapons.
Venezuela has also bought laser technology to mark ammunition, Reverol said, in an attempt to keep a registry of the bullets given out to the South American nation’s many state and municipal police forces.
Their form of gun control means, of course, that only the police, the military and the criminals will have guns – even though they officially acknowledge that police corruption – with resources and salaries under pressure – is the biggest factor in arming gangs.
Everyone else must hope for the decency and restraint of these privileged groups of people – police, military and criminal gangs – upon whose mercy they must rely during the collapse of their nation.
What happens in a country where food is scarce, and those with guns can get everyone else to do what they want for food? What happens when there is a monopoly on “protection” and self-defense is outlawed?
Gun control, of course. Venezuela, of course, has already imposed strict control, but this is a renewed focus.
Caracas is the murder capital of the world, and has had a very high murder rate for decades. But when 2012 saw tougher gun laws, the murder rate actually climbed even higher.
Via Crime Research.org:
Private gun ownership was banned in Venezuela in June 2012, but their homicide rate went from 73 per 100,000 people in 2012 to 82 per 100,000 people in 2015. The BBC seriously repeats the Venezuelan government’s claim that the ban is an “attempt by the government to improve security and cut crime.” The ban was preceded by an amnesty to get people to turn in their guns. The video gives some idea of what life is like in Venezuela these days.
The “renewed focus” on disarming the population only shows how far the State is willing to go to keep order on its terms. It won’t stop crime, but thousands of crushed guns, and in the midst of the biggest crisis ever in Venezuela… actually, it is a sign of darker things to come.
Suspicion, purges and domestic repression are all inevitable from here. The corruption will be squeezed out of the walls as Venezuelans, caught it he middle, struggle to hold on to decency.
How can people who are angry at the government and who want its leader thrown out to be kept down? How far is the regime willing go?
Opposing the regime or breaking the rules in order to feed families will be an increasingly risky behavior.
News flash: this could happen in the United States overnight under a Hillary Clinton presidency. All they need is the right crisis to suspend rights and the rule of law.
Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan
James Wesley Rawles is a former intelligence officer of the United States Army, prolific author and one of the top survival experts in the world. In his best-selling book series Patriots,he paints a terrifying picture of a post-collapse America where food is scarce, currency is worthless, law and order have broken down, and survival is a daily struggle. It’s a fictional tale, of course, but one that is grounded in real-world possibilities.
In his latest interview with SGT Report, the SurvivalBlog.com founder breaks down the probability of such a scenario and explains that should it come to pass, where hyperinflation destroys our currency or a world war ravages America, the most important thing to have in your possession will be essential tangible assets.
Further, Rawles notes that as we get closer to the possibility of a Hillary Clinton P residency, we may soon see panic buying of firearms, ammunition and gun-related accessories.
Venezuela is a microcosm of a centrally planned government and currency run amok… and we need to learn from their example.
If you notice the things that people are clamoring for are tangibles… they’re looking for food and they’re looking for currencies that are inflation proof and that usually means precious metals.
So if we’re going to learn anything from Venezuela it’s tangibles, tangibles, tangibles.
…Wake up… watch what’s happening in Venezuela… you need to get your beans, bullets and band aids squared away… Those tangible items are going to be what pulls your family through the hard times ahead. And regardless of what happens to currencies, if you have a honest one year supply of food, preferably two years, and a good core position in physical precious metals that you hold at home… hidden… not in a bank because banks are vulnerable to banking holidays where they would limit or eliminate access to your safe deposit box…
If you have those tangibles… food, silver and my other favorite is common caliber ammunition… that’s the other thing you should really stock up on heavily.
I have a feeling that as we get closer to the election and if it looks like the poll numbers are leaning to Hillary winning there’s going to be a massive run on firearms… bigger than anything we’ve ever seen before… and along with that people are going to be rushing to buy any ammunition they can, reloading components and full capacity magazines.
If you want to survive a collapse scenario this is a must-listen interview:
Article reposted with permission from SHTF Plan
“I think that we’ve got to reign in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun anywhere, anytime. And I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people. . . . carrying guns in public places. . . .” — Hillary Clinton, May 6, 2016 at the National Council for Behavioral Health
Surprise! A new report that was recently unveiled proves that the liberal fear of gun owners is completely and utterly unfounded.
The report, which was titled, “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States 2016,” covered a number of gun issues including the rise in gun ownership and the connection between gun owners and crime. While the entire report is well worth reading, there was one section in particular that is catching the attention of many 2nd Amendment advocates. The study examined data from Texas and Florida, two states that most accurately reflect the nation at large, and found that concealed carry holders are not just less likely to commit a crime than their fellow citizens, but they’re even less like to commit crime than police officers!
Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at one-sixth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.
The study also found other important correlations between American gun ownership and crime.
During President Obama’s administration, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared to over 14.5 million – a 215% increase since 2007. Among the findings of our report:
■ The increase in the number of concealed handgun permits last year set another record, increasing by 1.73 million. That is slightly greater than previous record of 1.69 million set the last year.
■ 6.06% of the total adult population has a permit.
Along with this extreme spike in gun ownership has come a correspondingly extreme collapse in violent crime and murder!
■ Between 2007 and 2015, murder rates fell from 5.6 to 4.7 (preliminary estimate) per 100,000. This represents a 16% drop. Overall violent crime fell by 18 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of adults with permits has soared by 190%.
■ Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and a drop in murder and violent crime rates. Each one-percentage point increase in rates of permit holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate. This holds true even after accounting for the number of police per capita, demographics, and the percentage of the population that is incarcerated.
The simple fact of the matter is that both the scientific and anecdotal sets of evidence point to the 2nd Amendment being a boon for freedom and security. Throughout our history our allies and enemies alike have speculated that America is safe from outside aggression because of our right to carry. Our philosophical leaders have also long argued that our liberties are more secure from our own politicians because of the 2nd Amendment. The one sticking point has always been… but is there a negative correlation between crime and gun ownership? Well, the data that we have collected over the last 40 years should finally put this foolish notion to rest (at least for intellectually honest folks). The scientifically gathered, and closely studied data bears out the truth… when law-abiding citizens are free to own firearms, crime, particularly violent crime (including murder), becomes less pervasive.
To put it succinctly: More Guns, Less Crime.
Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com
“Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government.” –Abraham Lincoln
From Hillary Clinton deliberately and blatantly lying about running guns to Syria to Barack Hussein Obama running guns to Mexican drug lords through “Fast and Furious,” both having be found aiding and abetting the enemies of America (which is nothing short of treason). You would think that the American people would be well aware of the pill that is in the jam when it comes to this criminal administration’s lawless executive orders (Psalm 12:8).
Furthermore, we now find that there are more government bureaucrats with guns than U.S. Marines, as well as government now targeting gunsmiths with enormous fees in latest gun prohibition measure.
Barack Hussein Obama, along with his incompetent outlaws, has set his sights on law-abiding gun owners in an attempt to “infringe” upon rights (Amendment 2 Bill of Rights) during his last year of his incumbency. He is doing this with permission from the American people in violation of the law.
As a matter of fact, he wants to put forward more unconstitutional executive orders to accomplish this. How does that work? Sway the public opinion by playing the emotions to policy rather than principles to the law (Ephesians 4:14).
Understand that The Declaration of Independence underlies the Constitution. It holds that the rights of the people come from God and that the powers of the government come from the people (Exodus 18:21). This is, in fact, the reason that this government is at war with God and His people (Revelation 12:17).
Executive orders are defined:
United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law (Enumerated laws found within the United States Constitution) when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress (The representatives of the American people) that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review (Not by them that want to interpret what common sense laws state. Nor are judges there to judge the standard by which they are judged by), and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution.
There is NO constitutional provision nor statute that explicitly permits executive orders. The term executive power Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, refers to the title of President as the executive. He is instructed therein by the declaration “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5 or face impeachment. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President’s sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.
An executive order of the president must find support in the Constitution, either in a clause granting the president specific power or by a delegation of power by Congress to the president.
There is no judicial interpretation, no compromise nor debate. Why? It is because neither this nor any other administration has the power nor the authority to act out of their scope of authority.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”(Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
“Every law consistent with the Constitution will have been made in pursuance of the powers granted by it. Every usurpation or law repugnant to it cannot have been made in pursuance of its powers. The latter will be nugatory and void.” (Thomas Jefferson, Elliot, p. 4:187-88.
“…the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding. In the same manner, the states have certain independent power, in which their laws are supreme.” (Alexander Hamilton, Elliot, 2:362.)
“This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land.… It is not the supreme law in the exercise of a power not granted.” (William Davie, Pennsylvania, p. 277
“It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines the supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution” (Alexander Hamilton, concerning the supremacy clause The Federalist Papers, #33.)
“There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, #78.)
So, how is it that this administration gets away with what it gets away with? I can tell you. They do so due to the ignorance of the American people who have not taken the time to know the difference.
Remember, Thomas Jefferson said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects what never was and never will be.”
“The problem with the American people is that they are being indoctrinated by corrupt, self-serving politicians who do not know, nor care to know, what the Constitution says.”
It may look like law, have the color of law, but it is not law! (Luke 11:21)
America quit allowing them that have not been taught to teach.
The Second Amendment was written to restrict government. It was never written to restrict the people or a business in any way, shape or form. However, though the right to keep and bear arms has historically been understood as a right that comes from our Creator, both state and federal representatives have been infringing on that right with restrictions and regulations and have even been going after ammunition in an attempt to push a gun prohibition agenda. The latest measure comes from the Department of State, who has no legislative or interpretive authority when it comes to the Constitution or law.
Frank Miniter at Forbes writes:
My gunsmith has a lathe, a drill press, even a barrel reamer. He uses them to repair guns. To him, they are like a car mechanic’s welding equipment, drill and cutter tools. He never thought drilling out a broken-off screw or grinding down a gun part to make a rifle’s action work smoother would define him as a “manufacturer.” But now, according to the federal government, he is a manufacturer and is required to pay a $2,250 annual fee as mandated by the U.S. State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) regulations. This is what the Obama administration is now saying in a rule change.
Manta lists 15,615 gunsmiths in American today. Many of these are small shops—many of them are even side businesses for people who began tinkering with guns and then went to a gunsmith school. Requiring these people to pay $2,250 every year will drive many of them out of business or underground. Perhaps that is the reason for the rule change from the Obama administration. If there is another reason, they aren’t making it public.
This “guidance” for federal regulators from the U.S. Department of State was issued on July 22.
This is not only an attack on guns, but also an attack on businesses when we are already experiencing a failing economy.
Gunsmiths will not have to register themselves as gun manufacturers, which is absolutely ridiculous considering they don’t actually manufacture a single gun. Gunsmiths repair guns. It’s like demanding that garage owners must now be labeled car manufacturers.
However, the new guidelines do list a few things which should not be considered manufacturing, such as “Occasional assembly of firearm parts and kits that do not require cutting, drilling, or machining,” and “Firearm repairs involving one-for-one drop-in replacement parts that do not require any cutting, drilling, or machining for installation.”
So, you can assemble parts, but if you need to drill, machine or cut a part of the gun, then you are a manufacturer. This is just silly. It is another means of control and pushing small businesses out of business.
Additional guidelines are just as silly.
The third activity is where the guidelines get strange: “Repairs involving replacement parts that do not improve the accuracy, caliber, or other aspects of firearm operation.” What is meant by these activities is confusing in several respects. While accuracy and “operation” of a firearm can be improved, improving caliber is subjective. Is a .45 an improvement over a 9 mm? Which is better between the 7.62×39 mm and the 300 Blackout? Maybe what is meant is any change in caliber, whether an improvement or not, but that is not what is stated…
…What changes to accuracy constitute manufacturing? Outside of barrel rifling, in most cases accuracy has more to do with the shooter, practice, and ammunition. Would sight replacement constitute manufacturing? Sights do not make the gun any more accurate, they only make it easier for the user to shoot more accurately…
…What are improvements “beyond its original capabilities? Would the addition of replacement night sights, fiber optic sights, red-dot sights, a scope, or a scope with greater magnification or better glass improve the accuracy or operation of the firearm? Again, sights and scopes do not affect the inherent accuracy of the gun, but they obviously improve the operation of the firearm.
One question I would like to ask is this, who wrote these guidelines? No, really. Did they come from lobbyists who own really big gun companies who are attempting to push out the little man, sort of like we see in Ayn Rand‘s Atlas Shrugged? Or is this just simply bureaucrats who are usurping their authority on their own to push an agenda?
It could be a bit of both, only if bigger manufacturers are actually this stupid to get in bed with government, then they have to know that the government will one day turn on them too. I’d say this is nothing more than seeing how far the people will let government infringe on their rights.
Joshua Krause makes similar comments in his article as he speaks about weeding out smaller gunsmiths and then later applying them to larger ones.
“After all,” he writes, “the last thing the government wants after they take away your guns, is a large population of angry and unemployed gunsmiths who know how to make guns.”
Current laws should be changed to allow concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit holders to be armed in gun-free zones (GFZ).
Below are two scenarios to consider:
First, you have a CCW permit and are out for a normal day. You find yourself in a GFZ. Therefore, you don’t have your gun, as current law prohibits this. Now, a shooting breaks out. Without your gun, what do you do? Do you flee or hide? Unfortunately, being unarmed, your options are limited. The outcome for you and fellow citizens may be completely out of your control. Although law enforcement in our nation is outstanding and officers are trained for such events, their response is reactive, taking several minutes. That means people die.
Now the second scenario: Laws allow you to be armed in GFZs. You are now a potential first responder instead of being helpless and defenseless. In this scenario, the shooter has unknowingly lost a vital advantage. Conditions may allow you to end the threat or at least minimize deaths. However, because of your CCW training, you understand the conditions under which it may be best to not engage the shooter if you can’t do so safely.
Which scenario potentially offers you a better outcome? What does your gut, your natural survival instinct, tell you?
Statistics show that gun sales and CCW applications spike after news reports of shootings. People instinctively realize the need to assert their inherent, natural right to take responsibility for their own protection.
Those who apply for a CCW must take a gun safety course that includes shooting range time. Knowledge is power. Individuals who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with guns become more confident with that knowledge. Crime statistics prove the gun crime rate for CCW permit holders is near non-existent.
Here are some gun facts:
• Defensive Gun Use (DGU) by citizens occurs more than 2.5 million times a year. In 15.7% of DGU incidences, a firearm saved lives.
• A government study indicates significant DGUs nationwide. Defensive gun use is six times that of criminal gun use, proving that citizens who carry deter crime without incident. This proves out the saying “An armed society is a polite society.”
• 80% of DGUs involve concealed handguns.
• 77% of all gun crimes occur in public.
• States tracking violent crime data on CCW permit holders show consistently low rates.
• From 1987-2014, Florida issued more than 2.5 million CCW permits. Out of those, only 168 CCW permit holders, or .0067% of the total, committed firearm crimes.
• Likewise, Texas data for 4,295,434 CCW permits from 1996 to 2011 indicate 30 crimes, or .0007% of CCW holders.
• Of all the alternatives to prevent mass public shootings, law enforcement officers cite trained civilians with CCW permits as the most effective solution. Eighty-six percent (86%) believe mass-shooting casualties would likely have been reduced or avoided all together.
Law abiding citizens must not be left defenseless because of the abundance of sensationalized media reports that fit the narrative for gun control. The statistics simply do not bear out the disproportional news reports. Actually, the facts show just the opposite. Where there is more gun control, there is more violent crime against citizens. According to USA Today, Chicago, now with their strict gun control laws in place, has just experienced a drastic spike in gun-related violence, proving this reality.
What a predator does with a weapon has more to do with the evil intent of the heart than the availability of guns. Guns are no more the cause of murder than spoons are the cause of obesity or cars the cause of drunk driving.
The statistics prove that, more than 99% of the time, people with ill intent obtain guns illegally, regardless of gun laws. They will avoid the legal paper trail at all costs. If not guns, these predators will use other means to commit crimes. Data from nations that have banned guns show an astounding increase in the number of violent crimes on an unarmed society, using illegally obtained guns, knives, hammers, and other objects.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 has not made schools immune to shootings. Why? Criminals, by definition, ignore the constraint of laws.
Some schools have a law enforcement officer on-site, often referred to as resource officers. Although a good start, this is insufficient. School policy should allow CCW permit holders on staff to exercise their natural right to self-defense at school. The same should apply in other GFZs, allowing citizens to conceal carry. Such changes would create multiple lines of defense with citizens as potential first responders in an active shooter event. Soft targets would disappear. People with evil intent would be put on notice that citizens have taken action to defend themselves and are no longer defenseless victims.
In each area with CCW or Constitutional carry laws in place, violent crime remains lower than gun-restricted areas. If armed citizens were causing issues in the course of carrying their legal weapons, rest assured, it would be lauded on every news outlet, ad nauseam.
A fear-based message concerning guns relies on silencing the actual data and, instead, using a purely emotional narrative with unfounded talking points. Ignore fear-based arguments that tout so-called “common sense” gun control. The faulty arguments against gun ownership are not grounded in fact, defy real common sense and are only emotional talking points.
Exercising our natural right to self-defense is the best deterrent to perpetrators of gun crimes. Instead of ridiculous “Gun-Free Zone” signs, the signs should read: “Criminal Free Zone: Protection Provided by Armed Citizens.” Then, response time for citizen first-responders would become zero.
*Article by Gary O. Perkins
In a video released by James O’Keefe and Project Veritas in association with Infowars, O’Keefe gets exclusive footage of a Hillary Clinton alternate delegate explaining the propaganda that Clinton will use, if elected president, to deceive and persuade the public into accepting an all-out, unconstitutional gun ban.
Of course, much of what she said is no mystery. It has been common phraseology to say that one is for “common sense gun legislation.” The reality is that kind of talk is actually “communist gun legislation.”
“Saying you want to ban guns altogether, that’s going to piss everybody off,” Clinton alternate delegate Mary Bayer told the undercover Project Veritas reporter.
So, she reveals openly that this is the ultimate goal, not some common sense legislation. She realizes that it will not only upset people, but it is unlawful and this is the reason they try to deceive the people.
“You have to take that sort of moderate… ‘We just wanna have common sense legislation so our children are safe!'” Bayer added. “You say sh*t like that, and then people will buy into it.”
Part of Mrs. Bayer’s problem is that her husband fails to lead her properly, as she unflinchingly says he wants to see guns banned as well.
Bayer also admits that getting “Democrats in office” is the only way to see such a ban on guns, and that Hillary would support the ban “for sure.”
The video went on to show that while many Democrats would support putting a sign at various locations that designated they were “gun free zones,” not one of them was willing to post it at their home.
This is quite telling, isn’t it? Clearly, some of these people are just useful idiots. They think this way because they have idolized criminals like Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah. Others actually believe this will make for a more safe culture and rid us of crime.
The reality is that these gun grabbers ignore real facts when it comes to gun free zones. For instance, since 2009, 92% of mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones. I would also point out that it was Clinton’s husband, Bill, who signed this unconstitutional legislation into law.
Clinton has been caught on audio blasting the Supreme Court over its ruling concerning the right of the individual to keep and bear arms as well as her biased attack of pro-gun groups.
Her opponent, Donald Trump, has taken a completely different position during the campaign.
The real issue is that the Constitution gives absolutely zero authority for those in government to write legislation that restricts or bans the ability of citizens to keep and bear arms of any kind, including warships and tanks. So, Congress can write all the words they want to write and in the end, they are simply acting unlawfully and treasonous against the people they are supposed to be serving.
On July 20, 2016 Attorney General Maura Healey took the law into her own hands, and the people of Massachusetts are not going along with her political agenda. According to the Attorney Generals own website she has given directives to all gun stores across her state to stop selling ” “copy” or “duplicate” weapon under the assault weapons ban”.
GOAL “Gun Owners Action League” states:
Without any prior notice or public hearings and while the legislature is on break for national conventions the Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey, has issued an “Enforcement Notice” to firearm retailers throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts changing the longstanding definition of so-called “Assault Weapons”.
For nearly 18 years since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act firearm retailers, gun owners and state agencies have been operating under the same interpretation. Now, suddenly, without warning or any due process a single person with a clear political agenda decides to change the rules. All Massachusetts residents should be alarmed!
GOAL is currently trying to decipher the enforcement letter, but with as much information that it contains, it is not very clear what it means. Statements such as the following make it very convoluted: “… a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.”
Virtually every semi-automatic that utilizes a detachable magazine has the same operating system or firing mechanism, so what does this mean? The short answer is we simply don’t know. Our best advice to firearm retailers for now is to err on the side of caution. These new rules may cover a lot more than just what we might think.
GOAL is working with people and groups around the State and the nation to clarify these new interpretations and decide the best course of action. One thing is certain that this new interpretation is purely a political stunt and has nothing to do with public safety or real law.
GOAL will be holding a Rally against the “Rogue” Attorney General on Saturday July 23, 2016.
Rally Against Rogue MA Attorney General
GOAL RALLY at MA State House – Front Steps – Saturday July 23, 2016 – 10:00 AM
Rally against rogue actions by MA Attorney General Maura Healey, who decided to make hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners “felons in waiting” via her sneak attack action posted this week while the legislature was away.
This Saturday, July 23rd the MA Legislature will be in a rare weekend special session to handle other matters – plan to be at the State House at 10:00 AM
Make your voice heard – Meet with your legislators – Protest the anti–freedom actions of Attorney General Healey.
Also, please note! CALL your legislator TODAY and urge them to join us against the rogue actions of AG Healey.
We see more and more politicians, and so called leaders trying to implement unlawful rules and regulations that violate your unalienable right to bear arms. I do personally wonder if this is the back door and collaboration in order to implement the UNODA/ UN SATT DISARMAMENT PLAN. One thing is for certain it’s unconstitutional via federal or state constitution, and it is surely unethical.
The Massachusetts Constitution states:
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
Article VIII. In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.
I hope their rally is successful. If you have the ability to get to the rally please do so, as this effects us all. On a personal note to the Massachusetts residents, I think it’s time you recall this Attorney General invoking Article VIII. Good luck and God Bless you, our union will be watching.
Bloomingdale is a relatively anonymous neighborhood in Washington D.C. It is less than two miles northwest of the capital. Few have ever heard of Bloomingdale – although, if you are a House of Cards fan, the opening credits of the show feature shots of the D.C. neighborhood.
While it has undergone major rejuvenation, with more government staffers taking up residence, the neighborhood is still predominantly black – 59%, according to the 2010 census.
One such D.C. staffer who resided in Bloomingdale was 27-year-old Seth Conrad Rich. According to The Political Insider, he worked as a “voter expansion data director” at the Democrat National Committee (DNC). Apparently, he “worked on computer database to help voters identify and map their individual polling locations.”
Normally, I would delve a little more deeply into what a “voter expansion data director” does, because if the DNC was his employer, you could bet what “voter expansion” might entail. But you may have noticed I used a lot of passed-tense words describing Mr. Rich.
This is because Seth is no longer with us. He was killed over the weekend in his own neighborhood of Bloomingdale.
No, it wasn’t a traffic accident that ended his life. He was shot several times, at 4:20 on Sunday morning, on a residential street near a neighborhood convenience store. He died in a nearby hospital hours later.
His boss, head of the DNC – Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz issued a statement that read: “Our hearts are broken with the loss of one of our DNC family members over the weekend. Seth Rich was a dedicated, selfless public servant who worked tirelessly to protect the most sacred right we share as Americans – the right to vote,” she said. “He saw the great potential of our nation and believed that, together, we can make the world a better place.”
I’ll hold my tongue and not comment on the absurdity of her statement except to say, see – it really is all about politics with these people.
Now I, like many, are wondering just how he could have been shot – in Washington D.C.? Other than California, D.C. has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Even after the Supreme Court, in the 2008 District of Columbia v Heller case, which ruled that a D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional, the city hacks have still made it virtually impossible for a private citizen to carry a gun – open or concealed – without showing “good reason” for doing so. Prior to 2008, a resident of D.C. could not even have a gun in his own home.
In May of this year, a district court judge decided a case which nullified D.C.’s “good reason” clause, saying that anyone who met eligibility requirements could not be denied a carry permit – that “good reason” is likely unconstitutional – but the order was stayed 10 days later. Way to go out on a limb there, judge. Likely unconstitutional, my aunt fanny. Of course it’s unconstitutional!
But no matter – there are a myriad of other restrictions involving guns and ammo in the district, including the stipulation that it is unlawful to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a public or private day care center, elementary school, vocational school, secondary school, college, junior college, or university, or any public swimming pool, playground, video arcade, or youth center, or an event sponsored by any of the above entities.
In a relatively small neighbor like Bloomingdale, there would be practically nowhere one could legally carry a weapon and not be within 1000 feet of something.
The police have no leads, and there is a $25,000 reward for any information. If authorities know, they’re not saying what Mr. Rich was doing out at the wee hours of Sunday morning. I do know that not much good happens at that time on a weekend.
So with all the restrictions, background checks, etc., how on earth was Mr. Rich gunned down? The same way thousands of others in major cities are killed – by criminals. Criminals don’t obey the law. That’s what makes them criminals. They don’t subject themselves to background checks or ammo clip restrictions. They don’t care if they are within 1000 feet of a school. Only the law-abiding are negatively affected by these silly feel-good laws.
But this will make no difference to D.C. gun-grabbers. Expect to see new restrictive legislation pushed by the city council and the dems – probably having some heart-tugging name like Seth’s law. They’ll have to take advantage of this tragic event – that’s what they do.
If anyone has heard Matt Damon speak about his view of the world, this is not going to take you by surprise. There are few people in the world farther left of reality than Damon. But one cannot help but be shocked by Damon’s hypocrisy.
Gun-toting action star Matt Damon of The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy, The Bourne Ultimatum, and The Departed, says he wishes the U.S. would implement a gun ban similar to the one Australia implemented in the 1990s.
According to Stuff, Damon said, “You guys did it here in one fell swoop and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly. We just can’t.”
There might be a little disconnect in what Matt said and what he meant. This would make it hard for most to understand what he is saying to the Australian people. Matt is not saying that there has not been intellectual dialogue on gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment.
What Matt means is that people do not agree with him on the subject.
But are we surprised? When discussing things like gun rights or marriage, people like you and I are too stupid to understand. We are the uneducated who just need to go along with what the elitists tell us is right.
And this does not even take into account the level of hypocrisy that Matt has reached. Though Damon is opposed to gun ownership, he kills people for a living – with guns, no less. Well, not in real life.
You see, the movies that Damon has made his fortune on are those in which he pretends to be a wholesome, mid-American, gun-toting killer…just like Liam Neeson, who made a similar statement while promoting his highly violent movie.
They hate guns so much that they get rich exploiting America’s love for them. I do not know what is sadder: the fact that these two grown men still play make believe or that we fools still pay to watch.
Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com
This is the kind of elitist mindset that Communist, gun grabbing congressmen have. They think they are to have rights, but no those that they serve. In the recent gun control “sit in,” at least 26 of the Democrats that attended actually own guns.
In a report by Heat Street, we discovered the following:
The controversial sit-in included 26 Democratic lawmakers who themselves own guns, Heat Street learned after examining 2013 USA Today data on congressional firearms ownership. The participants also included 12 more Democrats in Congress who either didn’t respond to USA Today’s gun survey or declined to say whether or not they possessed a firearm.
Oh, and don’t worry, it was all at our expense. I mean it wasn’t like these Communists were not going to do without while they sat-in to violate Americans’ rights to keep and bear arms and the protections of the Fifth Amendment that no citizen lose their rights unless convicted of a crime.
Democ?s are truly pathetic politicians, taking selfies & catered food at "sit-ins" fighting to nullify your rights pic.twitter.com/LKPhUGkCBu
— Nick Short (@PoliticalShort) June 23, 2016
They even got nice pillows to sit on.
— andieiam (@andieiamwhoiam) June 23, 2016
Still, the hypocrisy of these people is amazing and it’s right out in the open. Not only were 26 of them gun owners who were pushing for the unconstitutional no-fly no-buy nonsense, but Democrat Rep. John Lewis, who organized the sit-in for the legislation, was actually found to be on the no fly list.
The media has dubbed the Orlando shooting as the largest mass shooting in US history. However, is that really true or is it propaganda? The reality is that a greater mass murder took place in American history and it took place at the hands of the central government of the united States.
What am I talking about? I’m speaking of the mass slaughter of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. Those men, women and children were summarily murdered by the US 7th Cavalry Regiment, which was commanded by Major Samuel M. Whiteside.
So, what happened? It seems that the US government wanted to disarm the Lakota Indians “for their own safety and protection.” According to one account, in the process of disarming these people, a deaf Indian named Black Coyote was not willing to give up his rifle because he paid a lot of money for it. Obviously, this was not going to be tolerated by men who were “just following orders” and a fight ensued over the weapon when a shot was fired.
As a result, both the cavalry and the Lakotas who still had their weapons began to open fire. However, the cavalry were able to take down many of those who shot at them and chase those who fled, killing many of them.
In total, nearly three hundred men, women and children lost their lives because the central government chose to infringe on the God given right to all men, and that it the ability to defend themselves.
Indeed, it was one of the largest mass murders in our history, and it was nothing more than democide. Of the 297 victims who were killed, 200 of them were women and children.
The Second Amendment speaks of rights, which are based upon the Bible and the Declaration of Independence, which reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Of course, right come from our Creator, and our forefathers recognized that government was in place to secure those rights not infringe upon them. In fact, by infringing upon them, the government becomes criminal, not an arbiter of justice against evil doers.
Wounded Knee was very similar to what our founding fathers faced from England as they attempted to disarm them. That is what sparked the shot heard round the world in the first battle of the War for Independence.
Other mass murders could be cited in our history that dwarf the Orlando shooting. Lonnie Poindexter listed a few in his piece titled, Obama’s Black Camelot: Hell-Bent on Disarming the American People at all Costs.
Wounded Knee should be a reminder of why the Second Amendment exists. The Second Amendment was written to protect God=given rights to men in order to maintain a free state, not tyranny. Apart from the ability to keep and bear arms, we as a people are left defenseless and unable to protect those closest to us, our communities, and our sovereign countries (states). We are then left at the mercy, or more specifically brutality, of a tyrannical beast that throws off its God-given duty and usurps the place of the Creator.
Let us be reminded of both Wounded Knee and the War for Independence when bleeding heart communists demand we give up our arms because of Islamic terrorists or false flag events, and let us be willing to defend those rights by using said arms.