Archive for the ‘anti-gun idiocy’ Category

Divided by the Whitehouse

Posted: December 13, 2015 by silentpartner60 in anti-gun idiocy, ISIS, Leftists, Obama, second amendment

Excerpt From

 Abraham Lincoln’s Lyceum Address  January 27, 1838

“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer. If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

Lincoln understood that a house divided could not stand. “If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher.”

For those of us that firmly believe in the second amendment, we are being bamboozled.  But even worse off, the gun haters who are buying into the misdirection and divisive tactics of the Whitehouse administration and yes, our president.

From the very first post California islamic terrorist attack press conference, Barack Hussein Obama began shifting the blame to the lack of gun control laws and the left wingers bit into it in a big way.  Think about this, he wouldn’t even say there was potential terrorism here, but he would say this tragedy proves the need for more gun control laws. Blame the guns, not the criminals.

This has been expanded upon in every subsequent press conference by the Whitehouse and further expanded upon by the left and liberal biased media and every liberal with access to social media.  In rebuttal, the pro-gun nation has responded in kind trying to defend their position.  It’s become a reinvigorated national debate.  Just spend a few hours on Facebook and look at the inordinate amount of space devoted to these two sides going after each other.  It’s epidemic!  We’re being distracted.

This is just what the Whitehouse intended and we fell into their trap.  We’re are no longer focused on, and united by, a common threat (Islamic Terrorism) we’re divided by our passions over an issue that is distracting us from the reality of crime and terror.

Now is the time for us to be united, liberal and conservative, and this divisive Whitehouse has managed to put a wedge between us on this issue like so many other issues under the current regime’s watch.  At the very time in which we should be united against a common enemy……..we’re divided.

Why is the Whitehouse and the president trying to build division amongst us?

It’s a diversionary tactic and we’re all buying into it.  Barack Hussein Obama does not want to deal with the problem of the Islamic State (ISIS) or domestic Islamic terrorism.  We can speculate on his motives all day long, but why?  It really doesn’t matter what his motives are because he’s not going to do anything about these issues anyway.  He wants to kick the can down the road and leave this mess to a Republican administration which is certain to be elected next year.  Then when the new administration gets into a ground war in the middle east, he will not have been a part of it.  This pussy gets to keep his skirt clean and blame it on the Republicans?  So while we’re spending our time debating gun control, we’ve taken our eyes of the immediate threat and are not pursuing or insisting on actions and solutions to Islamic Terrorism both domestic and abroad.

So, it’s our responsibility to get the train back on the tracks.  The gun haters are perfectly content to blame the guns.  We, as supporters of the second amendment need to focus our energy on what’s important, being safe from Islamic terrorism and crime.  We need to do a better job of directing the national consensus back to this goal.

How do we do start to do that? Stop wasting your time arguing with liberal idiots about gun control and get the focus back on the real issue.  My friend Don always says”  Never argue with an idiot.  Because, sooner or later, to get them to understand you, you’re going to have to lower yourself to their level.”

How to talk to a Liberal?

So the next time you’re confronted with,

“We need gun control because you’re more likely to be killed by a gun in a crime, than by a terrorist.”

Your answer should be, “you’re right, I agree.  I agree that today I’m more likely to be killed by a criminal than a terrorist.  But where I come from, a terrorist is a criminal, whether they use a gun, a knife, a bomb or an airplane.”

Now, follow up with a question, “What do you think we should do about terrorism in light of the fact that they’ll use any means necessary to kill people?”

Don’t get into the debate with them over gun control, you’re not going to waste your time with that.  You’ve engaged them now, told them they were right or so they think and even asked them for advise on the real problem.  Bingo, you’ve done it.  You’ve got them past the issue of gun control and moved them in a direction of thinking about the real threat terrorism.

“There are more guns in this country than people, we don’t need all these guns and should get rid of them.”

Your answer, “ You’re right, we do have more guns than people, and with what’s going on with ISIS, in France and now here, gun sales for personal protection are on the rise.”  “People are really concerned over their personal safety,”  “What do you think they should do?”

Again you’ve agreed with them on some level, you’ve outlined a threat of which they have obviously ignored, and asked question that they probably haven’t thought about.  You see, their focus is the guns and the control, they’re not thinking about the real and actual threats.  This is exactly what the Whitehouse and liberals want………  Instead of wasting your time arguing about Guns and Gun Control, you’ve now got them pondering your questions and this will force them to consider the real problem.  It will redirect their focus where it belongs.

“All the NRA cares about is getting money by lobbying for Gun Manufacturers.”

You’re reply, “yes your right, they are the biggest gun lobby and aside from their membership fees, they probably get a lot of money from gun manufacturers.”  “They must spend a lot of money on protecting their clients and the second amendment.”  

“You know, I looked at their website, they do a lot of gun safety training and even have advise for people who aren’t gun owners, like, how to teach your children about gun safety, even if you don’t own a gun.”  “With all of the gun owners out there, I bet our kids have gone into homes with guns in them and we didn’t even know it.”  

“It’s probably a good ideal to teach our children about gun safety, have you ever talked to your kids about what to do if they ever see a gun in someones house?” 

You’ve agreed with them, educated them and once again asked them a question that might get them thinking about the importance of gun safety.  If they have children, I bet they go online and at least give it a look.

In these three examples, you can see that it’s more important that we get people motivated to deal with the most pressing issues. You’re not going to change someones mind on gun control in a conversation at a party or interacting on social media, so don’t waste your time.  Instead, use that time to help get them focused and enlighten them on the issues that matter.

Whether Barack Hussein Obama and his administration are kicking the can down the road for the next president or want to end American as we know it, we can’t become an unwitting partner.  It’s clear that they want to use gun control as a diversion and the left is willing to go along.  Let’s not fall into this trap and use this opportunity to guide the misguided.

“I know you can fight but, it’s our wits that make us men”  Words of wisdom from Malcolm Wallace to his son William (Braveheart).

Why would an environmental impact study be required for administration action authorizing possession of guns in national parks, but not for action authorizing the presence and activities of millions of foreign nationals?

Why would an environmental impact study be required for administration action authorizing possession of guns in national parks, but not for action authorizing the presence and activities of millions of foreign nationals?

MVM is hiring. The government contractor is seeking qualified nationwide transport specialists on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security to escort “Unaccompanied Children” by ground and air.

The company, boasts of “provid[ing] specialized services to both public and private sector clients. From protecting the children of King Hussein of Jordan, to supporting U.S. Embassies throughout the world, MVM has performed with distinction.” That distinction, especially for a “secret contractor” that has been embroiled in controversy, is no doubt enhanced by a leadership that includes politically-connected former careerists from the Secret Service and the U.S. Marshal’s Service.

The thing is, transporting these children, sheltering them, feeding them, clothing them, bathing them and dealing with the waste they generate will all have an environmental impact, and while seemingly negligible compared to the totality of things, that’s added to the millions of heretofore illegal aliens already in the country now empowered to stay, and to those on their way, attracted by seeing “migrants” who came before them rewarded for lawbreaking. Their long-term impact as an aggregate on the environment and on the resources needed to provide energy, sustenance and disposal, can hardly be considered negligible. Nor can the immediate and continuing impact of environmental destruction left in their wake.

Gov. Malloy's latest "report" confirms he's not interested in any information that does not promote an incremental citizen disarmament agenda.
Gov. Malloy’s latest “report” confirms he’s not interested in any information that does not promote an incremental citizen disarmament agenda.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Unsurprisingly, a report released Friday by the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate prioritizes placing the blame for the “Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School” on ownership of firearms, with particular emphasis on the semi-automatic kind that can accept standard capacity magazines. The “findings” are the result of direction from the Connecticut Child Fatality Review Panel “to prepare a report that would focus on Adam Lanza [and] develop any recommendations for public health system improvement that emanated from the review.”

That administration functionaries concluded impeding the right to keep and bear arms would be a “public health system improvement” is also unsurprising. An advocacy role in itself is telling, along with the office’s allegiance to Gov. Dannel Malloy though his appointment of “primary author” Sarah Eagan to head a state agency that holds powers of intervention and subpoena.

“Access to assault weapons with high capacity magazines did play a major role in this and other mass shootings in recent history,” the government polemic masked as authoritative study results declares, in the first of 13 references to the term “weapon” contained in the report. “Our emphasis on AL’s developmental trajectory and issues of mental illness should not be understood to mean that these issues were considered more important than access to these weapons or that we do not consider such access to be a critical public health issue.”

That “conclusion” is restated several times, along with several side trips obviously intended to further demonize private gun ownership.

Along with “gun-related homicides in Australia … The firearm-suicide rate dropped 65 percent,’” the advocates claim, citing a 2010 “study” in the American Journal of Law and Economics This was after meaningful gun control regulations which outlawed possession of assault weapons were passed following a mass shooting.”

Interestingly, the much-touted Australian experience is not all those with an agenda to advocate for defenselessness would have us believe. No less an authority than The British Journal of Criminology observed “The Australian situation enables evaluation of the effect of a national buy-back, accompanied by tightened legislation in a country with relatively secure borders. AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) was used to predict future values of the time series for homicide, suicide and accidental death before and after the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). When compared with observed values, firearm suicide was the only parameter the NFA may have influenced, although societal factors could also have influenced observed changes.”

Earlier this month, an accused white supremacist in Florida named Marcus Faella was sentenced for two counts of the “crime” of “paramilitary training.” The sentence he must serve is six months in prison–vastly less than the 30 years he might have received. From WFTV 9:

The man found guilty of leading a white supremacist group in Osceola County has been sentenced to six months in jail.

Marcus Faella could have faced up to 30 years in prison after being found guilty on two counts of paramilitary training, but he instead got only a few months.

The “white supremacist” accusation, if true (and there appears to be some question about that, according to witnesses called by the defense) paints Faella as an unsavory, and indeed reprehensible, individual. But it does not–cannot, in a free society–make him a criminal. As National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea notes in his online journal War on Guns:

As for the guy being a racist, if he hurt anybody, prosecute him. If he didn’t, life is full of distasteful people. Tolerance doesn’t mean approval, as much as some insist otherwise.

But rather than Faella’s specific case, let’s look at the Florida law he was convicted of violating (one count of “paramilitary training by teaching,” and one count of “paramilitary training by participation”). Couldn’t, after all, any kind of training intended to make a militia more effective (or “better-regulated”) be considered “paramilitary training”? Well, the law is a bit more specific than that:

(3)(a) Whoever teaches or demonstrates to any other person the use, application, or making of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Whoever assembles with one or more persons for the purpose of training with, practicing with, or being instructed in the use of any firearm, destructive device, or technique capable of causing injury or death to persons, intending to unlawfully employ the same for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder within the United States, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Well, OK, then–the training is only illegal if intended to prepare people to engage in civil disorder. Who could object to that?

Well, anyone who thinks to ask who gets to define what constitutes “civil disorder,” and determine the intentions of the teachers and participants in the training. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, after all, designates as “insurrectionists” anyone who dares utter that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the people’s means of resisting a tyrannical government. That list includes even mild-mannered gun rights advocates.

The Brady Campaign expressed outraged indignation when National Public Radio profiled the Southeast Michigan Militia as a benign organization that prepares to help maintain civil order, rather than reinforce the anti-gun groups’ preferred narrative of militias as terrorist groups.

And the Florida “justice” system is definitely on board with a wide open interpretation of what constitutes paramilitary training intended to foment “civil disorder.” According to another WFTV 9 article about the Faella case, a conviction for the “crime” of “paramilitary training” does not even require the prosecution to prove any specific plans on the part of the accused:

A New Mexico Op-Ed says citizens do not have a right to own guns under the Second Amendment.
A New Mexico Op-Ed says citizens do not have a right to own guns under the Second Amendment.
Dave Workman

Anyone who honestly believes that the battle over firearms rights is finished could consider an Op-Ed in the Saturday edition of the Santa Fe New Mexican on-line to be the proverbial splash of cold water, as author Hank Bahnsen insisted that “There is no Second Amendment right to own guns. So intended the founders!”

Bahnsen’s 481-word essay elicited only three reader comments yesterday, but more importantly, illustrated the continued divide between firearms owners and gun prohibitionists. No amount of Supreme Court language in the Heller and McDonald rulings will change things, apparently. While Bahnsen is entitled to his opinion, it is likely to rub a lot of his fellow citizens the wrong way.

It may explain why one California sheriff seemed compelled the other day to explain in a website post that his agency will apparently need to be dragged kicking and screaming, as the Calguns Foundation put it, into compliance with the recent Peruta decision. Calguns quote from that decision, noting, “[T]he Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home,” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014) at 1172 (emphasis in original), because “carrying weapons in public for the lawful purpose of self defense is a central component of the right to bear arms” (Id at 1175).”

But Sheriff Stanley Sniff’s public information officer reminded readers that, “Residents are reminded that California CCW issuance is discretionary by the police chief or sheriff, and is based upon both reason of (1) self-defense or self-protection, AND (2) good moral character.” (Emphasis in the original document.)

Question: Who defines “good moral character?” Where in the job description of a county sheriff can that authority be found?

If there is “no Second Amendment right to own guns” and only people of “good moral character” can be allowed to carry firearms with government permission in California, what does that say about where the country is, and where it may be headed? Perhaps one answer could be found over the weekend in a two-part treatise by John Richardson at “No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money.”

Richardson first examined the passage of Initiative 594, the 18-page gun control measure, in Washington earlier this month. In the second installment, he made some predictions about where similar efforts, apparently to be supported by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown For Gun Safety lobbying organization, might pop up next.

One reason Richardson identified some states as ripe for the kind of gun control in I-594 is explained thusly: “The next factor that I thought would have an impact was the proportion of the state’s residents that were actually born there. I call this the ‘Californication’ factor. In other words, people move from California to other states such as Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and bring their California attitudes with them. We see a similar pattern in the East as in-migrants from states like New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have altered the politics of states like Florida and Maine.”

“Nevadans for Background Checks collected about 250,000 signatures, according to Kayla Keller, a spokeswoman for the group. It currently takes 101,667 signatures from registered Nevada voters to qualify an initiative for the ballot”

We all know the following is bullshit-numbers produced by wording questions so those who take the poll provide a predetermined answer.

As usual-the anti-gun zealots pushing this garbage are using lies,half-truths, and obfuscation.

There is no way in hell that even 50% of the people of Nevada support this crap-no gun owner I know would support giving the government even more control over our right to keep and bear arms. Lies,false and misleading question on polls-and likely on the ballot initiative-are how these leftist tools produce their false numbers of supporters-wonder how many dead voters signed their petition?

“On the gun issue, polls show that more than eight out of 10 Nevadans support expanding gun background checks to private sales, including over the Internet and at gun shows, advocates say. Now, such checks are required only by licensed gun dealers to prevent felons, the court adjudicated mentally ill and domestic abusers from legally buying guns.”

“The gun background check initiative is supported by the Everytown For Gun Safety Action Fund, a group launched by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who is spending tens of millions of dollars on efforts to influence elections and ballot measures in states. He spent some $40 million in the recent election, according to Politico.

If enough signatures are found to be legitimate, the initiatives would first go to the Legislature, which has 40 days to act on such measures. If lawmakers pass it and the governor signs it, the measure becomes law. If the Legislature does nothing or if the governor doesn’t sign it, an initiative goes on the ballot.

If lawmakers amend the measure, both the original version and the amended measure would go on the ballot. If both pass with more than 50 percent of the vote, the one with the larger number of “yes” votes becomes law.”

Bellicose Demanding Moms have proven as easy to dupe and exploit -- by pushing emotional buttons and letting their ignorance do the rest -- as Obamacare supporters.
Bellicose Demanding Moms have proven as easy to dupe and exploit — by pushing emotional buttons and letting their ignorance do the rest — as Obamacare supporters.
Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

Employing the same cynical political strategy and contemptuous duping of “stupid” voters as Obamacare promoters, Michael Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action relied on deception to exploit ignorance, prejudices and fears in the midterm elections, a Gun Rights Examiner analysis of social media messages on TPM Livewire demonstrates. The professionally-produced “Explain Your A” campaign featured in the story targeted three Republican candidates who had received high marks from the National Rifle Association: Carl Domino of Florida, Paul Chabot of California, and Larry Kaifesh of Illinois.

“Does your A grade from the NRA mean you support gun rights for suspected terrorists?” the attack on Domino read. Along with his picture, the Moms included a photo of Al Qaeda’s American-born propaganda tool, Adam Gadahn, whose previous affiliations in the “gun control” debate were with anti-gunners shamelessly exploiting another lie, that full-auto weapons could be bought without background checks and IDs at U.S. gun shows.

“Does your A grade from the NRA mean you support the rights of felons to buy and own guns?” the hit piece on Chabot asked. His portrait was paired with a heavily tattooed prisoner behind bars.

“Does your A grade from the NRA mean you oppose taking guns from domestic abusers?” the smear against Kaifesh insinuated. Accompanying his picture was the image of a distraught, heavily-mascaraed woman with her fists clenched against her cheeks suggestive of both Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” and MacCaulay Culkin in “Home Alone.” For some unexplained reason, the model in the staged photo shoot has what appears to be masking tape across her mouth — either that or she’s wearing a turtleneck like Mort from “Bazooka Joe” comics. With these crazy MILMs, who the hell knows?

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers,” novelist Thomas Pynchon noted in “Gravity’s Rainbow.” In this case, the minds behind the Moms ask those questions for us in order to manipulate emotions and suppress critical examination. After all, who wants terrorist, gangbangers and wife-beaters shooting victims?

The targets of the misleading Bloomberg hit pieces are enabling nothing of the sort, of course. And nothing being demanded would stop the bad guys anyway.

If a person is a known threat, public safety demands he be apprehended. If he’s only a suspected threat, there’s this little protection we’re supposed to have called due process, where people get a trial, are proven guilty and are sentenced. What they’re going for here is a “terror watch list” for guns, as if tipping off those who are under surveillance makes for smart intelligence work. What they’re also going for is people who are not in custody being stripped of fundamental rights and liberty, not that the Bill of Rights means anything when you‘re a “progressive” with an agenda to shove down throats. Besides, there’s another, bigger deception going on: These people are using fear of an Al Qaeda boogeyman to justify deprivation of liberties they really want extended to those they paint as domestic terrorists – that is, anyone who believes the right to keep and bear arms is a legitimate deterrent to tyranny, and in a last-resort right to rebellion.

OK, but what about felons, that is, people who have already received their due process? We’ll put aside my longstanding contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, and focus on the way things are. Such criminals are already prohibited by law from having a gun – for all the good that does at stopping them. What the Bloombergians want here is to end all lawful (!!!) private sales and transfers, done under another deception as we’re seeing unfold in Washington State, so-called “universal background checks.” And yes, of course they’re aware that the National Institute of Justice produced a “Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” report in which it concluded “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

So of course what they really want is gun registration (something the gun-grabbers know felons are exempted from, because requiring it of them would violate their right against self-incrimination). If all they really intended was to ensure recipients of firearms transfers were legally eligible, “common sense gun safety advocates” would be promoting a Blind Identification System, which could verify no legal impediment to a transfer exists but record no information identifying either gun buyers or what they purchased. And, again of course, the real reason they want registration is to facilitate confiscation.

The night of November 9 – 10 will mark the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the infamous Night of Broken Glass, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership reminds its supporters by resurrecting an essay from the 60th anniversary of the obscene precursor to genocide. Written by Rabbi R. Mermelstein in 1998, the recounting of the night of official hatred and horror gives a graphic reminder of what happens when disarmed people are powerless to protect themselves from evil.

Commemorating Kristallnacht is appropriate. Ensuring government terrorism can never happen again is a sacred duty of free people.

Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images

There are two common lies spread today by latter-day leftists. The first is one of projection, equating Nazis with “conservatives,” and denying that the National Socialists were just what they claimed to be. It’s part of the “For ‘progressives,’ every day is Opposite Day” truism that defines falsely self-identified “liberals,” and it’s a deception giving cover to true ideological heirs.

“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and that others, including democratic socialists, thought so too,” researcher and author George Watson revealed. “[Hitler’s] differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical [and] ‘the whole of National Socialism’ was based on Marx.”

Making a point: Is the criticism fair? Are the rebuttals?
Making a point: Is the criticism fair? Are the rebuttals?
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Adding herself to a long list of problematic Mayors Against (Your) Guns, Betsy Hodges of Minneapolis posed for a photograph, reportedly “with a convicted felon while flashing a known gang sign,” Jay Kolls of 5 Eyewitness News claimed Thursday.

“The man in the photo is a twice-convicted felon for drug selling and possession and illegal possession of a firearm,” Kolls maintained. “He is currently sentenced to five years at the St. Cloud Correctional Facility, with the prison term stayed for three years while he is under supervised probation…”

While Hodges’ supporters claim “the mayor is simply ‘pointing at him’ in the photo,” a retired Internal Affairs officer maintains “She can’t be that naive.” The situation is reminiscent of when anti-gun radical priest Michael Pfleger of Chicago urged a crowd to “snuff out” a legal gun dealer, and apologists expected people to believe someone intimately familiar with gang culture had no idea what the term meant.

For her part, the Minneapolis affiliation with the Bloomberg mayors’ group is documented on the “Everytown” website (for now?). For their part, “progressives” are doing what they do best: Engaging in Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule. And playing the race card. They’ve even established the hashtag, #pointergate to facilitate mocking the story on social media.

If we’re to take them at their word, that this is all “a Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing,” then at least we should expect consistency. Maybe all the hysteria over school kids getting suspended for pointing their fingers can be placed in sane context.