• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    December 2018
    M T W T F S S
    « Nov    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    wearenegroes on Will Hillary Clinton Run Again…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    IB on Why Gun Ownership is Biblical…
    NEW White House Insi… on Hitler and the muslim bro…
    who to write an Essa… on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

DEMOCRAT Eric “Adolf” Swalwell: Face of Tyranny

It is tyrannical pricks like this little dribble of diarrhea staining the underpants of America who are fanning the flames of civil war. The democrats aren’t hiding it anymore.  It’s not conspiracy theory by the NRA or right-wingers. Democrats are OPENLY CALLING FOR MORE GUN CONTROL ALL THE WAY TO CONFISCATION. Personally, I’m sick of tyrannical pricks like this provoking a revolution with no repercussions. I want all of you democrat pricks to band together RIGHT NOW and TRY to implement nationwide gun confiscation. Quit screwing around. Let’s get this over with so we will finally have the justification needed to once and for all get rid of people like you trying to undermine the Constitution and destroy our liberty, and restore Constitutional LIMITED government in America. You’re already PUBLICLY threatening us, so this is a response of self defense. Your move, dickhead.

+

Swalwell gun confiscation nukes twitter capture

Advertisements

I Support Law Enforcement Except When…

In general, and on principal, I support my police, sheriff, and state troopers.  However, and here’s the big “but,” when they choose to enforce unconstitutional laws that infringe upon our Constitutional rights, I will NOT support them, and think they should step down lest they become an enemy of the citizenry.

Typically if someone has a problem with what the police are doing, rather than get upset with the police they need to get upset with the legislators that wrote the law.  However, when it comes to clearly unconstitutional law, law enforcement officers have a choice.  They face the same choice that military members face when given an unlawful order.  Do they carry out the order and say they were “just following orders” when the crap hits the fan?  Or do they choose not to follow those orders, risking more immediate consequences from their overlords?  If the oath you swore mentions something about the Constitution, then the choice in this case is clear.

These New Jersey officers are CHOOSING to make themselves an enemy of the Constitution, and of the citizenry, by willfully denying 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendment rights, to name a few.  Unless confidence in the legal system is restored, and if these encroachments on our liberties continue, what will logically follow is something no one wants to see.
+



 

NJ State Police Attempt To Confiscate Resident’s Guns without a Warrant

Gun Confiscation Squads
NJ State Police Attempt To Confiscate Resident’s Guns without a Warrant.

Millstone Township, New Jersey –-(Ammoland.com)- An Army veteran father says State Police tried to confiscate his firearms without a court order or warrant just because his son was overheard discussing school shooting news with a classmate.

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Major Brian Polite, a spokesperson for the New Jersey State Police, stated that the troopers that conducted the investigation determined there was no need for the weapons to be seized. He also said he could not comment on whether the incident was related to the new gun laws.

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights.  ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

Cottrell said if the school had contacted him and talked about what had happened instead of going to the police first, “it would have been worked out right then and there.” He said he also would have understood if he’d gotten a call from the State Police to learn more, instead of the late night visit to his home.

Link to article: https://www.ammoland.com/2018/07/nj-state-police-attempt-to-confiscate-resident-guns-without-a-warrant/#axzz5L37Kp0NA

Pro-Gun Rallies: Why the Turnout Was So Low

This one isn’t hard at all to understand.

Don’t think for a second that there isn’t MASSIVE support across this country for the 2nd Amendment and gun rights.  However, supporters of the 2nd Amendment and most other conservative causes aren’t anything like the protesters on the left.

The biggest difference is that most law-abiding, Constitution-loving, honest conservatives have these things called “jobs” and “lives” that must be attended to daily.  Most can’t just skip work to attend political rallies.  They’re not being paid by liberal billionaires like George Soros and many other liberal sources to carry signs and stir up trouble.

Do not make the mistake of believing that silence is acquiescence (lefties, you may need to look that on up).  We will only allow ourselves to be pushed so far before we push back.  

It’s only a matter of time before one or more of the left’s useful idiots, who are being stirred to action by people who will NEVER suffer the consequences of these actions, gets shot when they surround a conservative carrying a gun who doesn’t know the intentions of the mob surrounding him/her, and legitimately fears for their life and the lives of their family.  And the Maxine Waters and other democrat politicians, and leftist media figures and movie stars who are encouraging their sheep-like followers to engage in such activity will NEVER be at risk of being harmed because it’s their idiot followers doing their dirty work for them.

Oh, and lest we forget those on the left calling for revolution, you need to understand that if the 80 to 100 million law-abiding gun owners were the problem, you would know it by now.  But if you want to keep pushing, we have one thing to say.

We’re your Huckleberry.

+



Organizers of pro-gun rallies lament low turnout

 A group of protesters gathers in Washington, D.C., for the March for Our Rights, a rally supporting gun ownership. Similar protests took place in other cities, with the intent to outdo the March for Our Lives gun-control rallies, but organizers were disappointed in low turnout.
A group of protesters gathers in Washington, D.C., for the March for Our Rights, a rally supporting gun ownership. Similar protests took place in other cities, with the intent to outdo the March for Our Lives gun-control rallies, but organizers were disappointed in low turnout.(Astrid Riecken for The Washington Post)

CHICAGO – Student-led rallies around the country on Saturday aimed to show support for gun rights, though their effort drew smaller-than-expected crowds in a bid to counter the well-funded and organized youth gun-control lobby that emerged after the massacre in a Florida high school earlier this year.

Here in Chicago, people rallied in a corner of Millennium Park. In Los Angeles, protesters yelled “gun rights are human rights” as they marched near Pershing Square. In Washington, an American flag billowed against a backdrop of the Capitol as attendees said guns are being used as scapegoats and that society’s problems run deeper than firearms.

Students who say their views have been silenced in recent months as vocal gun-control advocates have been monopolizing attention used the marches as a way to raise awareness of their fears that hasty solutions could lead to an erosion of the Second Amendment.

Colin FitzSimmons, 13, of Algonquin, Illinois, spoke at the Chicago rally, sounding alarms that liberal gun-control efforts really want to “to disarm the populace.” People held signs reading “we’re not going away” and “take back gun rights.”

“Our generation isn’t going to embrace gun control,” Colin said, noting that any changes to gun laws need to be carefully considered. “The devil is in the details.”

Organizers of Saturday’s marches said many conservative students feel as though their views are not being taken into consideration in the debate about school shootings, and the marches on Saturday were planned as a way to show that not all students support gun control.

Planning for Saturday’s rallies started in April, weeks after gun control rallies took place in Washington and other cities. Some of Saturday’s organizers found one another on Instagram and Facebook and decided to speak out against what they saw as an attack on gun ownership. They expected a modest turnout on Saturday, but far fewer people showed up than organizers had hoped.

In Chicago, organizers planned for about 125 people, but the rally drew approximately 35. The group gathered in a corner of Millennium Park, not the great lawn, because organizers did not secure a permit and park security forced them to leave.

Earlier in the morning in the same city, hundreds of anti-gun violence protesters shut down 10 blocks of the Dan Ryan Expressway, one of the busiest interstates in the United States. Their march along the highway was in protest of gun violence and gun-related deaths in Chicago, and the disruption drew widespread attention – and some scorn, from groups including the National Rifle Association.

Kevin Yan, an 18-year-old University of Chicago student, said he is “an outlier” at his school because he is passionate about the Second Amendment. He said he has never owned a gun and has never shot a gun, but he believes gun ownership is “a critical American tradition” and “really important for self-defense.”

“The media always says the millennial generation has decided it’s against gun rights,” he said. “We are here to show that’s not true.”

In Palm Beach, Florida, about 100 people were expected to rally at a park; 13 came, including organizer Ashley Johnson, three speakers and the parents of two of the speakers.

The event was meant to be a counterpoint to the March for Our Lives rallies that attracted thousands across the country after the February shooting, including at events in Florida.

“The goal is to be just as successful as March for Our Lives,” Johnson said. “We want to outdo them.”

Ralph Curra, 14, who was an eighth grader at Westglades Middle school, which is adjacent to Marjory Stoneman Douglas, spoke at the event. He recalled hearing the screams from next door, and being on lockdown for five hours as the investigation began into the Feb. 14 attack.

“Raising the age to buy a gun, all you parents out there, when you send your child to college, don’t you want them to be able to protect themselves from criminals?” he asked. “The new laws will leave your child vulnerable to attack in today’s dangerous society.”

Johnson said she was disappointed in the turnout.

“I don’t know why more people didn’t show up. I think a lot of conservatives are just afraid to show up for public events,” she said through tears.

In Washington, a few dozen high schoolers, college students and recent graduates came together near the Capitol for the Second Amendment march. American flags and “Make America Great Again” hats dotted the crowd.

Tyler Yzaguirre, president of the Second Amendment Institute, told the gathering that although they were few in number, they would show the left that no one should be afraid to defend their rights.

Organizer Morgan Sachs greeted the group and thanked everyone for coming.

“The media doesn’t seem to like to talk about pro-gun students, they only want to talk about anti-gun rhetoric,” she said. “Our voices are going to be heard now.”

Link to article:  https://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2018/07/organizers_of_pro-gun_rallies.html

National “Buy a Gun Day”: How We Counter the Movement to Destroy the 2nd Amendment

Perhaps you’ve been watching the marches calling for gun control and confiscation, the leftist politicians calling for gun control and confiscation, and been watching the Republican politicians cowering in fear instead of standing up for our rights.  Many conservatives say that we should be countering the leftist protests with protests of our own.  Sadly, that will likely never happen, mostly because most conservative defenders of the 2nd Amendment have these things called “jobs,” and they must show up to work to pay the bills.

But I heard an idea that will send a message more loudly, and more clearly than ANY protest rally.

Think about how much it costs each protester to drive or fly to one of these protests.  Think about how much it costs in food and lodging for probably at least two nights and 3 days.  Add those amounts together, and how much do you think they spend?  Probably anywhere from $500 to $2,000.  Since we don’t have time to travel to these protests, I submit a more constructive way to spend that money.

BUY A GUN ON THE MONDAY BEFORE ELECTION DAY.

Whether you buy a shotgun, a small pistol, a bolt action rifle, or a high-end custom AR, BUY A GUN on the Monday before election day, Monday, November 5th

What kind of message do you think it will send to the linguine-spine politicians when MILLIONS of Americans literally crash the NICS system buying guns?  Do you think they will understand that we will not stand for them infringing on our rights?  I think it will send a message more loudly, and more clearly than anything a couple of Marxist teenagers can say.

Start saving up, and spread this to anyone you can.

Lt Col Ralph Peters Goes Full Retard on Gun Control

Lt Col Peters, I have agreed with you on so much in the past, but here is where we part company. You are now attacking my fundamental rights, which I can not stand by and allow you to do without response.

You attempt to give yourself absolute moral authority and “unimpeachable” qualifications by stating “I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs.” How does that qualify you to opine about limiting or ELIMINATING MY RIGHTS? It does not. I’ve written lots of checks. Does that give me the authority to tell someone else that they can’t have or write checks? Obviously not. I’ve eaten lots of food, most of which I purchase at grocery stores. Does that give me the authority or tell someone they can’t either shop at a grocery store or grow their own food if they choose? Again, obviously not. However, that’s the faulty logic you use in an attempt to establish your authority.

You then display your actual ignorance on this topic when you say “These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting.” Yes, the AR-15, AK47 and similar weapons were originally designed as military weapons. No one denies that, but to deny the FACTS that these guns also have peaceful uses is ignorant, dishonest, or both. When you say ARs, and even AKs, are not used for hunting, that is patently and absolutely false. They are rapidly becoming the most popular weapons for that use. AR pattern rifles chambered in .223 Remington/5.56 NATO and similar calibers are ideally suited for varmint hunting and small to medium game. AR pattern rifles in larger calibers such as .308 Win/7.62 NATO are ideal for larger game like deer, elk, etc. There are bolt action and other type rifles used for similar purposes chambered in these EXACT SAME calibers. Being a “scary looking” military-style gun does not limit the usefulness of a gun for LAW ABIDING purpose. Then you say “They’re lousy for target shooting,” which shows the exact same type and level of ignorance or malice on your part. These weapons are used recreationally by millions of people for target shooting and competition ALL THE TIME. Where are you getting your so-called facts?

The next asinine statement you make is “The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun.” Really? With any shotgun common to bird hunting today, such as a Remington 1100 or Beretta pump or semi-automatic, Nikolas Cruz could have easily killed and wounded just as many, and perhaps more people than he did. Using buckshot, he could potentially have hit more than one target at once. Have you ever seen what a deer slug fired from a shotgun can do? It’s a lot more gruesome than the damage a .223 can inflict, and at close range it would probably go through more than one body, potentially killing more than one person with each shot. Your ignorance continues unabated…

Next, you say “The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms.” Seriously? If the Las Vegas shooter actually slowed down to aim rather than using the spray-and-pray method, which is about all you can do with a bump-stock equipped weapon, he could have EASILY and PRECISELY killed just as many or more with a bolt action rifle. From his vantage point, he was shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, sir, you go full left retard with this quote. “That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” You can’t honestly be this ignorant of the founding fathers intent. You are a college graduate, and former commissioned officer in the United States military. I would expect more from you. You apply the MODERN, often intentionally misunderstood meaning of “well regulated.” Let me clear things up for you.

►To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term “well regulated” as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to “raise and support.”

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies’ recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch’s goal had been “to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment’s overriding goal as a check upon the national government’s standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say “A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State” — because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the “security of a free State.”◄
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

In other words, “well regulated” means REGULAR as in similar in makeup. Citizens were to be armed with weapons similar to those in use by the military SPECIFICALLY to serve as a check and balance to government. Hunting was not mentioned as that was an assumed part of normal life. Have you not figured out that EVERYTHING in our form of government was designed to serve as a check and balance to EVERYTHING ELSE in our government? When those checks and balances are eroded or ignored, what then? When a benevolent government is freed from the constraints placed upon it, it has almost always throughout history become MALEVOLENT and oppressive towards the citizens it is supposed to serve. Our founders were painfully aware of this, and expressly included a provision in our Constitution to act as a final failsafe to return our government to its constitutional reservation should it stray. Are you honestly that ignorant of history?

To add insult to injury, you then personally attack the character and patriotism of EVERY American who has not served in the military or as a member of law enforcement. You say, “As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.” I know many people who have never served in either capacity who would willingly lay down their life for this country should that be required. You have abandoned sound logic, and resorted to the emotional attacks of a COWARD, sir.

Again, you attempt to establish some form of absolute moral authority when you say, “As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming.” I, too, swore the very same oath you did, as have many thousands of others, and will uphold it until my last breath. Apparently, I and many others under that oath seem to more fully understand what it means than you do.

Nearing the end of your painfully ignorant piece, which I am becoming convinced is also intentionally deceitful, you posit the following: “Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?” My question to you, sir, is do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that any of our founding fathers, or “geniuses” as you snarkily refer to them, would have intended for the law-abiding citizenry to be disarmed and unable to defend themselves should someone decide to employ their weapon illegally and with malice? Do YOU or any other “serious-minded, morally centered reader” believe that the founding fathers intended for the citizenry to sit back and await the arrival of law enforcement to save them from a hostile person intent on killing them? You can’t possibly be this ignorant, can you?

Moving on to your next emotional, ignorant question, “We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?” I have some questions for you, Mr. Peters. Where have ALL of these mass shootings taken place? ANSWER: In “gun-free” zones where LAW-ABIDING citizens could not carry firearms to defend themselves and stop an attacker before it turned into a “mass” killing. Where are the places in America where the most people are murdered with firearms? ANSWER: In cities that already have the strictest gun control laws in the country. Do criminals obey laws? ANSWER: If I have to answer this for you, you need to ensure you never appear on television, write an article, or open your mouth in public ever again. But as for pure numbers of children murdered, why don’t I hear you decrying the slaughter of MILLIONS of children via abortion? There are more children murdered in this country EVERY. SINGLE. DAY by abortion than ALL PEOPLE OF ANY AGE who are killed by rifles of ALL types in an ENTIRE YEAR. Where’s your indignation about that?

Your next question, “How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?” That’s a great question. Let’s look at a few facts to help establish what “common sense” on this issue really is, shall we? Most mass shootings are over before law enforcement arrives. Either the murderer has left the scene, or has killed a large number of people before SOMEONE WITH A GUN shows up to stop him. As we previously established, ALL of these shootings were CHOSEN by the murderer largely because they were soft targets full of unarmed people. In all cases, when the murderer was confronted by a good-guy with a gun, the killing stopped. With that in mind, it would be COMMON SENSE and the most decent thing to do to have MORE good-guys with guns to counter any bad guys with guns, and more importantly to serve as a DETERRENT to those who intend harm to others. You continue by saying “As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.” ALL the evidence and actual historic facts DO NOT back up your assertion. Is it possible that some might be hit by friendly fire as you assert when you say ““Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger?” Yes, it is. But, again, what you are attempting to pass off as logic is flawed. Do I only eat raw meat because there’s a chance I’ll be burned on a stove or campfire? Do I refrain from using pens and pencils because I might write a misspelled word? Do we ban all cars because there are a few drunk drivers? As a military officer, and supposedly a leader in the military, you should understand the concept of “calculated risk.” It’s a SURE BET that many will die if the murderer is allowed to shoot at will, without opposition. There’s a VERY HIGH probability that the shooter will cease targeting innocent people when confronted by someone with a gun because they now have to defend themselves. There is also a HIGH PROBABILITY that even with friendly fire casualties, fewer will die than if you allow the shooter to remain unopposed. You just haven’t thought this out, have you?

Your emotional diatribe is completely void of sound reasoning or fact. Based on your history debating and discussing other issues, this surprises and disappoints me. I’m sure in your lengthy military career you must have heard the saying “One ‘aw sh**’ wipes out a hundred ‘atta-boys.’” In one article, you have managed to do exactly that, sir.



I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

Guns and I go back a long way.

My father was a champion skeet shooter. A picture of him aiming his favorite pump skyward has pride of place in our living room. He owned fine rifles and shotguns, and he valued them.

My first experience with pulling a trigger came late, by family standards. I was already 7 or 8 when my dad and “Uncle” George took me out back of Old Lily’s house and handed me a sawed-off shotgun (illegal then and now) kept handy for woodchucks and rattlesnakes. The recoil didn’t knock me off my feet, but my shoulder ached for weeks.

I’m blessed to have few material regrets, but I still feel a sting when I recall how, after my father’s bankruptcy, we had to sell his guns to put food on the table. Those arms were important to him and, thus, to me.

I served in the US Army, including unforgettable years in an infantry battalion. I fired my share of automatic weapons, from M16A1s to machine guns and even Kalashnikovs. (Let’s not talk about dud-grenade disposal . . .)

And I’m a gun owner. As I write these lines, there’s an 1858 Tower musket behind me and a Colt on my desk.

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.

These are cop-killer weapons, too.

The standard argument deployed in reply to demands that military-grade weapons be banned or mildly restricted from public sale cites the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Well, here’s what the Second Amendment actually says:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That “well regulated militia” part always gets left out. It’s called the “National Guard” and “the Reserves.” Did any of the recent shooters belong to a “well regulated militia”? As a matter of fact, I have not been able to identify a senior NRA executive who’s served in our military or in law enforcement — that’s patriotism for ya.

As an Army officer, I pledged my life to the Constitution of the United States. I live by that pledge even now. But when the Second Amendment was drafted, the Redcoats really were coming. Our standing army numbered in the hundreds.

Does any serious-minded, morally centered reader believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson or any of our other geniuses of freedom intended that a disturbed young man or a disgruntled employee or just a vicious drunk should be guaranteed the right to a personal arsenal of weapons designed for mass murder?

How can members of our Congress or state legislators put their re-election campaigns above the lives of children? How can they do that? We’ve lost far more American kids to mass shootings than we have to terrorism of any kind. How can members of Congress live with themselves?

How many kids or law-abiding adults have to be gunned down before we apply common sense and simple decency?

The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day.

As for putting weapons in schools, that’s a punk idea. More innocents would die.

When the shooting starts, even the best-trained, most disciplined soldiers and cops — US Army Rangers or NYPD SWAT members — don’t put every round on target. The notion that a guard or teacher who goes to the range once a quarter would keep kids safe is profoundly divorced from reality. “Friendly fire” would simply add to the danger.

Again, I support gun ownership. Always have, always will. But if anyone feels irresistibly compelled to fire automatic weapons or their surrogates, I have a deal for them: Join the US Army or the Marines as a combat infantryman. You’ll even get paid to pull triggers.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.

Link to article:  https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/

+

 

Bret Stephens & Second Amendment – Fundamentally Wrong | National Review

Regardless of what the screeching progressive left tells you, you need to understand ONE thing about our 2nd Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment was NOT put in place because of hunting, and the argument that the founding fathers couldn’t foresee AR-15s and AK-47s and didn’t intend people to have military arms is a strawman because ALL weapons at the time were military weapons.

The 2nd Amendment was put in place primarily to serve as the last line of defense against a tyrannical government. Do I need to repeat that for you? Let it sink in for a moment.

The British kept trying to confiscate colonists’ weapons so they couldn’t resist the king. A defenseless populace could not resist the oppression of the government. After winning the war, the founders were determined NEVER to allow that to be the case in America again, which is why they codified their hard-earned knowledge in the 2nd Amendment.

So, as politicians begin talking about gun control again, limiting your rights to keep and bear arms, and as the democrats are now finally OPENLY discussing confiscating your weapons, you are seeing the 21st century manifestation of the King of England and the British Parliament here on American shores.

The only difference between the 1700s and now is that the oppressors are on THIS side of the ocean.



Bret Stephens is fundamentally wrong about gun rights …

Source: Bret Stephens & Second Amendment – Fundamentally Wrong | National Review

They Tyranny of Gun Control

When a politician wants to make you live by a rule or law which they refuse to live by themselves, that should tell you all you need to know about submitting to such a law.

Here we have the ultra-progressives of California who want all the gun control they can get, but have openly exempted themselves from it.  When someone wants to keep their guns, but doesn’t want you to keep yours, does that send a message to you?  It should.

Realize that this didn’t happen yesterday, but back in 2011.  Since then, the progressives have just been making it harder and harder for the citizens of California to own a gun while the progressive politicians arm themselves with impunity, and have armed security.

Until we stop falling into the trap of blaming inanimate objects instead of blaming the criminal for their crime, we’ll never solve the problem.  And if we allow ourselves to be disarmed, we will have no protection from the criminals OR the tyrants who want to disarm us.

+



 

California Senate Votes 28-8 to Exempt Itself from California Gun Laws

The California State Senate agrees with Charlie Rangel that they “deserve” to own guns but the citizens do not! Every year they pass more and more gun control laws and NONE of them apply to themselves!

They voted 28-8 to exempt themselves from the gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the California.

You think maybe this will cause Californians to rise up? NOPE! It happened 5 years ago and since then, California has passed a plethora of other gun laws…that only apply to citizens.

Yes, you heard me right! The exemption was created in 2011 and the California legislature has passed a number of gun laws since. Pretty easy when you are passing bills that do not apply to you!

It is not the only special privileges California legislators provide themselves!

They do not pay red light camera bills or for gasoline!

How does it all happen so easily in California? The Washington Post explains:

Attempts by a handful of reformers to require politicians to provide a full annual disclosure of the benefits received from the public treasury have been rebuffed. Currently, government officials must file a statement of economic interests revealing income from any source other than a local, state or federal government agency. Gifts worth more than $50 also must be disclosed, but lawmakers rejected a bill that would have prohibited acceptance of concert and sporting event tickets, gift cards, spa treatments, golf outings and other benefits from lobbyists trying to buy votes.

Bills of this nature never meet an honest fate in which roll-call votes put members on the record as favoring or opposing each idea. Instead, reform measures are held in committee to die quietly as legislative deadlines pass. As of last week, it’s effectively impossible for a bill to become law if it hasn’t already passed in at least one of the chambers.

…and it just goes on and on!

Red Skelton said so eloquently in his commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance:

And to the Republic — A Republic: a sovereign state in which power is invested into the representatives chosen by the people to govern; and the government is the people; and it’s from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

California has it backwards, they are running with the method of “from the leaders to the people.”

That is why I joined the 5 million people who have fled California within the last decade.

You can take me out of Texas in a pine box, and even then I will be kicking and screaming!

%d bloggers like this: