Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 34      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #1 

"It only went click!"

pic207a.jpg

Last Thursday night round midnight, a woman in Houston, Texas was arrested, jailed, and charged with manslaughter for shooting a man 6 times in the back as he was running away with her purse.

The following Monday morning, the woman was called in front of the arraignment judge, sworn in, and asked to explain her actions. The woman replied:

"I was standing at the corner bus stop for about 15 minutes, waiting for the bus to take me home after work. I am a waitress at a local cafe. I was there alone, so I had my right hand on my pistol, that was in my purse, that was hung over my left shoulder. All of a sudden I was being spun around hard to my left. As I caught my balance, I saw a man running away from me with my purse. I looked down at my right hand and I saw that my fingers were wrapped tightly around my pistol."

The next thing I remember is saying out loud:

"No way punk! Your not stealing my pay check and tips."

"I raised my right hand, pointed my pistol at the man running away from me with my purse, and squeezed the trigger of my pistol six times!"

When asked by the arraignment judge,

"Why did You shoot the man six times?"

The woman replied under oath:

"Because, when I pulled the trigger of my pistol the seventh time, it only went click."

The woman was acquitted of all charges, and she was back at work, at the cafe, the next day!



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #2 

Since Seattle placed a tax on guns and ammunition, the city's violent crime rate has increased

pic115.jpg 

Mac Slavo (SHTFPlan) is reporting that in recent years, Seattle has developed a reputation for passing asinine laws. Recently the city tried to increase taxes on diet soda, because the drink is more popular among white people. In the past they've allowed 6th graders to receive IUDs without parental consent, and have enlisted garbage men to snoop through residential trash in search of compost that is illegal to throw out. Seattle was also the first American city to pass a $15 minimum wage law, which promptly hurt low wage workers.

So it's no surprise that sometimes the city passes laws that backfire in very predictable ways. In 2015 Seattle tried to place a tax on gun and ammunition purchases, in an effort to curb some of the costs the city pays for gun violence. However, these taxes didn't have the desired effect.

Seattle City Councilman Tim Burgess introduced the tax in 2015. It puts a $25 tax on every firearm sold in the city and up to 5 cents per round of ammunition. The measure easily passed and took effect January 1, 2016. Comparing the first five months of 2017 with the same period before the gun tax went into effect, reports of shots fired are up 13 percent, the number of people injured in shootings climbed 37 percent and gun deaths doubled, according to crime statistics from the Seattle Police Department.

Not only that, but the tax didn't bring in nearly as much money as city officials initially predicted. The only thing these taxes have accomplished, is the decimation of gun retailers in the city.

In selling his gun tax to the public, Burgess predicted it would generate between $300,000 and $500,000 annually. The money would be used to study the root causes of gun violence in hopes of reducing the costs to taxpayers.

Seattle officials refuse to say how much the tax brought in the first year, only giving the number "under $200,000." Gun rights groups have sued to get the exact amount.

But Mike Coombs, owner of Outdoor Emporium, the last large gun dealer left in Seattle, said the actual tax revenue is almost certainly just over $100,000, a figure based on information he says the city shared with his lawyers.

Coombs said storewide, sales are down 20 percent while gun sales have plummeted 60 percent.

"I've had to lay off employees because of this," Coombs said. "It's hurting us, it's hurting our employees."

So in other words, the city tried to raise money to pay down the costs of gun violence, but their efforts brought in very little money, and might have raised the costs of gun violence.

To be fair, there isn't any proof that this crime wave is directly related the gun and ammunition taxes. But the best case scenario is that these taxes had zero effect on crime rates, hurt jobs, and burdened law abiding gun enthusiasts for no good reason. And this was totally predictable. There was nothing preventing gun owners in Seattle from simply driving outside of the city limits to buy cheaper guns and ammunition. So there are only two reasonable explanations for why these taxes were implemented. Either the political leaders of Seattle are painfully dumb, or they were deliberately trying to wreck the gun industry in their city.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #3 

Republicans introduce new gun-carry legislation in wake of Alexandria attack

pic100.jpg

Stephen Gutowski (FreeBeacon) is reporting that Republican Congressman Thomas Massie (R., Ky.) introduced a bill on Thursday that would require Washington, D.C., to honor valid gun-carry permits from other states.

Rep. Massie said the D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act was a direct reaction to last week's attack on Republican congressmen at a baseball field in Alexandria, Va., which left four injured.

"After the horrific shooting at the Republican Congressional Baseball practice, there will likely be calls for special privileges to protect politicians," Rep. Massie said in a statement. "Our reaction should instead be to protect the right of all citizens guaranteed in the Constitution: the right to self-defense. I do not want to extend a special privilege to politicians, because the right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege, it is a God-given right protected by our Constitution."

Massie said if it were not for Capitol Police special agents Crystal Griner and David Bailey, who were only on duty at the baseball practice due to the presence of Rep. Steve Scalise (R., La.), the attack would likely have had a far worse outcome.

"If not for the heroic efforts of the United States Capitol Police at the ball field yesterday, things could have been much worse," Rep. Massie said. "What's always evident in these situations is this: The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. To ensure public safety, we need to repeal laws that keep good guys from carrying guns, since not everyone has a personal police detail. The right to keep and bear arms is the common person's first line of defense in these situations, and it should never be denied."

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R., Ga.), who was at the baseball field when the attack took place but survived unscathed, told a group of reporters on Wednesday that while the Capitol Police acted in a heroic way to stop the shooter, things need to change. He said if the attack had happened back in his home state of Georgia, he or his staff may have been armed and able to help stop the attack themselves.

"There are several things to look at," Rep. Loudermilk said. "If this had happened in Georgia, he wouldn't have gotten too far. I had a staff member who was in his car, maybe 20 yards behind the shooter. Back in Georgia [he] carries a nine millimeter in his car. I carry a weapon. He had a clear shot at him. But here, we're not allowed to carry any weapons here.

"We aren't any more special than anybody else, but we're targets. This is exactly why there's a lot of fear of doing town halls at this point."

Both congressmen pointed out that while Virginia, where the shooting took place, does honor the gun-carry permits of other states, it is difficult for those traveling between Virginia and D.C. to legally carry a firearm, since D.C. does not currently honor any other state's gun-carry permits. D.C. also has some of the nation's strictest laws on the possession of handguns. Legally transporting a handgun between Virginia and D.C. is a complicated process, especially if you are not a D.C. resident.

"Although Virginia extends reciprocity to concealed-carry permit holders in many states, the members of Congress and accompanying staff traveled directly from D.C. and were traveling back to D.C after the practice was over," Rep. Massie's office said. "It was D.C.'s harsh gun-control laws that prevented these law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to bear arms."

The D.C. City Council still refuses to honor gun-carry permits from any state. The Constitution, however, gives Congress the power to override the City Council and pass its own laws governing gun carry within the city. Although legislation is often offered in Congress to override the city's restrictive gun laws, Congress has rarely stepped in to impose its will on the city in the past.

The bill currently has 21 cosponsors, all Republicans, and is awaiting a hearing in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #4 

Another gun lesson from a progressive democrat

The dopes at NBC News shouldn’t feel too bad. They don’t know any more about guns than California State Senator Kevin De Leon.

Unfortunately, this airhead is in a position to infringe upon the right to bear arms -- as legislators in his state so often do:


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #5 

"Former" Secret Service agent explains the difference between a rifle and a pistol

Liberal NBC news guest and "former" Secret Service Agent explains that a "semi-automatic rifle" can be switched to rapid fire where the "semi-automatic" pistols that police carry only shoot one round at a time, "pop, pop, pop.

When will the liberal news media understand the difference between semi and fully automatic weapons. It's not rocket science and it creates confusion.

And the NBC "journalists" hang on every word of this "expert's" description.

No wonder she's a "former."

"Semi-automatic" is "semi-automatic." Period!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #6 

Florida sheriff declares "this is war" -- tells Americans to arm up

Mac Slavo (SHTFPlan) is reporting that a Florida Sheriff's video, that urges civilians to arm themselves and prepare for war, is quickly making the rounds on social media, but he has point when one listens logically. He warns that when a mass murderer strikes, the government won't immediately be there to save you. It will be your job to save yourself.

Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey posted the controversial video message on Facebook Wednesday, two days after a deadly workplace shooting in nearby Orlando claimed the lives of five people. The Florida sheriff urged citizens to arm themselves in self-defense saying "this is war."

He doesn't mean war in the sense that nukes will be flying, but the war against mass homicides and sociopaths who only seek the destruction of human life. "What's next is to fully understand that this is war, and you better be prepared to wage war to protect you, your family, and those around you if attacked," he said. Ivey stressed that attackers rely on people running, hiding, and waiting for help, rather than fighting back, and they will use guns, knives, bombs, and even trucks to kill innocents. "What they don't count on is being attacked themselves, having to become defensive to save their own lives," Ivey argued.

Become the first line of defense to prevent the loss of life, and protect yourselves and others. That was the underlying message the sheriff sought to convey.

Ivey's video is irritating anti-gun lobbyists and politicians who seem content with letting people die with a minimal chance of survival. Ivey encouraged people to take self-defense classes and urged those with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns with them at all times. "No matter who you are or what your position is on guns, there's no denying the fact that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun or a knife is an armed and well-prepared citizen or law enforcement officer," Ivey said. Ivey is simply stating the obvious. Yet, he's being called "controversial."

Ivey's being accused of "fear mongering" and riling up vigilantes for refusing to tow the line. As those in government, police included, continue to lean toward more gun control, (for everyone but themselves, of course). it's becoming obvious that those in charge want us to suffer at the whims of the sociopathic mass murderers. Leonard Papania, the police chief in Gulfport, Mississippi, spoke out against weakening gun regulations to the New York Times, saying, "Do you want every incident on your street to escalate to acts of gun violence?"

Gun control is a sensitive issue for most, as the logical in society understand that gun ownership doesn't make one a mass murdering homicidal maniac or terrorist, but the emotional side of people inhibits their brain from understanding that a gun can be used in self-defense, and may even prevent the loss of innocent life. When guns become outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.  An old saying, but one the hoplophobes seem to continue to forget.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #7 

Obama issued a massive ammunition ban just one day before he left office

pic206.jpg

Tyler Durden (ZeroHedge) is reporting that in early December SHTFplan contributor Jeremiah Johnson warned the inauguration was still a long way off and that we should never underestimate a Marxist with an army of oligarchs to lean on. It turns out that Johnson's warnings were right on target, as we have learned over the last couple of weeks that Barack Obama and officials in his administration moved feverishly to implement new rules and regulations with last minute initiatives.

One such regulation, which seemingly disappeared within the hustle and bustle of inauguration day, was a new order issued by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe just 12 hours before our new President was sworn into office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe, an Obama appointee, ordered a new ammunition ban for certain federal lands on Thursday–his last full day in office.

The ban, which took effect immediately, eliminates the use of lead-based ammunition on federal lands like national parks and wildlife refuges, as well as any other land administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The ban is expected to have a major impact on much of the hunting that takes place on federal lands across the United States as lead-based ammunition is widely legal and used throughout the country.

Ashe said the order was necessary to protect wildlife from exposure to lead.

Source: The Free Beacon Via Survival Blog

That may seem like a big win for the anti-gun Left, but The National Shooting Sports Foundation has already leapt into action:

"This directive is irresponsible and driven not out of sound science but unchecked politics," said Lawrence Keane, the group's senior vice president.

"The timing alone is suspect. This directive was published without dialogue with industry, sportsmen, and conservationists. The next director should immediately rescind this and, instead, create policy based upon scientific evidence of population impacts with regard to the use of traditional ammunition."

As we noted earlier, President Trump has a lot of work to do to reverse the damage caused by the Obama administration.

Reversing this asinine ammunition ban is a good start.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

Congress is about to reverse Obama’s Social Security gun grab

pic191.jpg

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) today scored a victory when Congress agreed to review, and likely revoke, a final rule by the Obama administration that would blindly strip law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights. 

"Congress's decision to review the Obama administration's back-door gun grab is a significant step forward in protecting a fundamental constitutional right for law-abiding gun owners," said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. "The NRA has been fighting this unconstitutional government overreach since it was first discussed and we look forward to swift congressional action."

Last year, the Social Security Administration finalized a proposed rule to ban certain recipients who use a representative payee from owning firearms. This ill-conceived action affected the most vulnerable in America and stripped them of their right to keep and bear arms without due process.

The NRA immediately opposed the Obama administration's efforts when the proposal was first announced in summer of 2015. The NRA has fought every step of the way to ensure that social security recipients are not stripped of their rights without due process of law.

Today, we learned that Congress will review the Obama administration's unconstitutional ban under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). CRA allows Congress to dispose of any actions an outgoing administration initiates in its last six months. This final rule falls under that time frame, and the review process is expected to move forward in the House and receive a vote as early as next week.

Imminent revocation of this egregious government action marks the culmination of the NRA's diligent efforts on behalf of its members and law-abiding gun owners.

"This is a new era for freedom-loving Americans and the NRA is excited to begin work with our pro-Second Amendment president and Congress to ensure that law-abiding Americans' constitutional rights are respected," concluded Cox.

The NRA thanks congressmen Sam Johnson (R-TX), Ralph Abraham (R-LA) and Steve Scalise (R-LA) for their work on this effort. It would also like to thank Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) for their leadership on this issue.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

Obama just won't quit -- pushes for new gun control in op-ed for Harvard

pic999.jpg

Stephen Gutowski (WashingtonFreeBeacon) is reporting that Barack Obama advocated for more gun control measures in an editorial he wrote for the Harvard Law Review on Thursday.

In a lengthy essay titled "The President's Role in Advancing Criminal Justice Reform," Obama urged the country to "take commonsense steps to reduce gun violence" while celebrating the executive orders he has enacted.

"We also need to do everything we can to keep our children and communities safe from gun violence," Obama said. "Addressing the country after mass shootings has been one of the most frustrating and disheartening responsibilities of being president -- and it's something I've had to do far too often."

"The names of so many places that should be remembered for their great contributions and strong communities -- places like Tucson, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, and Orlando -- still conjure up for me the deep sadness of so much unnecessary violence and loss," the president continued.

He described gun violence as "an epidemic playing out across the country" and decried the involvement of firearms in crimes, suicides, and accidents.

Obama went on to say that he has "tried to remind the country of how much common ground we can find on these issues" before decrying the reaction many Americans have towards tragic shootings.

"After a tragic shooting, we always come together to wrap those who are grieving with our prayers and love," Obama wrote. "But as I've said many times: '[O]ur thoughts and prayers are not enough.' They alone won't 'capture the heartache and grief and anger we should feel,' and they do 'nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America.' We have a responsibility to act."

Obama said that action to be taken should be "commonsense steps to reduce gun violence that are consistent with the Second Amendment."

The president then touted efforts he made during his administration, mostly through executive actions. He cited "dedicating more resources to ensuring those background checks are conducted on time" and "jumpstart[ing] the development of smart gun technology" as examples of his gun-related accomplishments.

He also pointed to his January 2016 executive order, which was originally sold by White House officials as a substantial change in how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives would determine who needs a license to sell firearms but was later revealed to change little about the process.

Obama said his efforts were not enough, though.

"But there's a great deal of work left to be done," he wrote. "Congress should pass the kinds of commonsense reforms supported by most of the American people -- from investing in access to mental health care, to expanding background checks, to making it possible to keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. The actions we take won't prevent every act of violence -- but if even one life is spared, they will have been well worth it."



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #10 

House Republicans form Second Amendment caucus

pic632.jpg
Rep. Massie

Stephen Gutowski (WashingtonFreeBeacon) is reporting that a group of House Republicans formed the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus on Thursday.

The group, headed by Rep. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.), said the caucus plans to draft and sponsor pro-gun legislation in the upcoming Congress.

"Caucus members will lead efforts in the House of Representatives to pass meaningful firearms legislation and protect Americans against infringements of the Second Amendment," the group said in a statement.

Massie said the election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both houses of Congress were the catalyst for the formation of the caucus.

"The recent election results present us with a new opportunity to advance pro-gun legislation and reverse the erosion of the Second Amendment that's occurred over the last few decades," he said. "I look forward to working with the new president and this determined group of conservatives to promote a pro-gun agenda."

In addition to sponsoring and supporting pro-gun bills, the caucus said they also plan to invite firearm experts, constitutional scholars, and pro-gun groups to speak to them regularly.

Some of those pro-gun voices praised the newly formed caucus in the statement released by the group.

"With so many laws disarming the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society and others who face real threats to their and their family's safety, it is reassuring to know that the Second Amendment Caucus is there to ensure people's safety," said John Lott, a pro-gun researcher and author.

"While many of us lawyers are working to secure pro-gun reforms in the courts, it's reassuring to know that the Second Amendment Caucus is doing the same in the legislature," said attorney Alan Gura, who has represented gun rights interests in a number of landmark federal court cases.

The inaugural members of the caucus are Republican Reps. Jeff Duncan (S.C.), Ted Yoho (Fla.), Brian Babin (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Mark Meadows (N.C.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Alex Mooney (W.Va.), Justin Amash (Mich.), Jody Hice (Ga.), Dave Brat (Va.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Scott Perry (Pa.), and James Comer (Ky.).

The group will allow other members to join but only if it deems their voting records on gun issues acceptable.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

Obama is "most frustrated" he couldn't pass gun control

   pic616.jpg 

Anna Giaritelli (WashingtonExaminer) is reporting that Barack Obama said his biggest policy disappointment was not passing gun control laws, according to an interview CNN aired Wednesday evening.

"If you ask me where has been the one area where I feel that I've been most frustrated and most stymied, it is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on Earth in which we do not have sufficient common sense gun safety laws," Obama told Fareed Zakaria in the TV special, "The Legacy of Barack Obama."
 
Despite national anger following mass shootings throughout his two terms, Obama was unable to convince Congress to pass legislation that would change those policies, including enhancing background checks and not selling firearms at gun shows and other venues.
 
Obama was adamant in the days following the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Conn., that he had done all he could to keep the U.S. afloat in the midst of other challenges, including the auto and bank bailout, and did not have the support to push a controversial gun bill now. Obama's frustration prompted him to take executive action in January 2016.

"The gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage," Obama said when announcing his decision.
 
That executive order expanded background checks while narrowing loopholes that allowed firearms to be sold at gun shows.

What should really frustrate Barry is the fact that, because of his position on the private ownership of firearms by American citizens, he is personally responsible for the sale of millions and millions of firearms.

Check out this chart:

pic615.jpg

Because multiple firearms may be purchased as a result of a single background check, there were, at a MINIMUM, 155.5 million firearms purchased during Obama's reign.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #12 
Yeah,  this will be a heck of a time to in America during the Trump Presidency.  Liberals, Communists, Anarchists, Black Lies Matter, SJWs, Muslims, etc...  the American people got some LEAD FOR YOUR BUTT if you start that lawless and criminal behavior.  I love it.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #13 

Trump plan calls for nationwide concealed carry and an end to gun bans

pic274.jpg

The Washington Post is reporting that president-elect, Donald Trump -- who said he has a concealed carry permit -- called for the expansion of gun rights days before the election, including making those permits, which are issued by states, should be valid nationwide like a driver's license Trump said:

"If we can do that for driving -- which is a privilege, not a right -- then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege."

In a position paper published on his website last Friday afternoon, Trump called for the elimination of gun and magazine bans, labeling them a "total failure." Trump wrote:

"Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own."

"Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like 'assault weapons', 'military-style weapons' and 'high capacity magazines' to confuse people. What they're really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans."

It's not a departure from what he's said on the trail this year, though it does mark a shift from a position he took in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve," where Trump stated that he generally opposes gun control but that he supported a ban on assault weapons and a longer waiting period to get a gun.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #14 

Support for "assault weapons" ban collapses

Dave Blount (Moonbattery) is reporting that after her extreme venality, which makes her easy for hostile foreigners to compromise, possibly the most worrisome thing about Shrillary is her hostility to the Second Amendment. Fortunately, there isn't much she can do about it, thanks not only to the Constitution but to a total lack of public support for more excessive gun restrictions.

Check out these Gallup results:

pic66.jpg

Support for an "assault weapons" ban has reached a record low.

A steep climb over the past 2 years in an earlier Gallup poll might help explain the plunging numbers:

pic67.jpg

Considering his Alinskyite background, it is no surprise that Obama's main short-term legacy will probably be destabilization. Without his extremism and divisiveness, we wouldn't have #BlackLivesMatter hooligans running riot on one hand and Trump supporters calling for violent revolution on the other.

The seas are choppy and likely to get choppier. People intuitively understand that this is no time to let Big Government confiscate life vests.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #15 

The Second Amendment does not give you the right to bear arms

Listen to this college history lecturer turned firearms instructor. He knows his stuff.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #16 

Hillary Clinton "would support" closing the gun show loophole by executive order

pic844.jpg

Breitbart is reporting that the batch of emails released by Wikileaks on October 7 includes one in which Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon explained that Clinton "would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order."

Fallon also highlighted Clinton's support of universal background checks -- which have already failed in California, Colorado, Washington state, and Paris -- and her support for a scenario wherein victims of crime would be able to sue gun manufacturers.

In the email, dated October 4, 2015, Fallon mentions that Today had made clear they were going to ask Clinton about guns. At that time she was still locked in a tougher stance than expected primary opponent Bernie Sanders. Fallon wrote:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President -- universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

Breitbart News has previously reported that Clinton pledged gun control by executive order. She began pushing executive gun control right after the shooting in the Umpqua Community College gun free zone. That incident occurred on October 1, 2015, three days before Fallon's email that Clinton "would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order." This is in line with a Washington Post report that Clinton wants to use executive orders "to go further than Obama" went  on gun control.

It is interesting to note that the Umpqua Community College gunman passed a background check for his weapons, so Clinton's "universal background checks" would have done nothing to stop the attack. Moreover, he did not acquire them at a private sale at a gun show, so any successful executive action against gun shows would have been powerless to stop the attack as well.

Her plan to open gun manufacturers to lawsuits by crime victims will not reduce crime either, but it will bankrupt -- and eventually end -- gun manufacturing in the United States. Senator Bernie Sanders warned of this during the March 6, 2016, Democrat debate, when he said, "If [gun makers] are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re really talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that."

By the way, there is no "gun show loophole." Federal law requires all firearm buyers to submit to the National Instant Criminal System for a background check.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #17 

Gun sales hit 17th straight monthly record -- up 27%

pic781.jpg

The Washington Examiner is reporting that gun sales hit the 17th consecutive monthly record in September according to FBI data released on Monday, and overall sales are up 27 percent compared to the same period last year.

A total of 1,992,219 background checks were processed through the bureau's National Instant Criminal Background Check System for the month of September, higher than the 1,795,102 conducted in September 2015.

The number of checks run through the FBI's NICS system is a reliable indicator of how firearm sales are trending, though there is no precise correlation between the number of checks and the number of guns being sold. Licensed dealers are required to run a check in the database every time they make a sale, but sometimes turn buyers down.

Sales have surged in the wake of ammunition shortages and fears that the Obama administration may seek to restrict Second Amendment rights in the president's waning days in office. Experts say the equipment being sold indicates interest has spiked out of growing interest in self-defense and hunting.

"Sales of handguns and AR's have been very strong for the past two months. Hunting rifles have been about average for this time of year," Scott Blick, a managing partner at Ammunition Depot, told the Washington Examiner. "Ammunition sales are definitely following that pattern with sales of 9mm ammo and .223 ammo being extremely strong."

A year-over-year record has been set every month since May 2015. The September figure brings the total for the first nine months of the year to 19,872,694, and puts this year on easily track to break last year's 12-month record, when 23,141,970 sought to purchase firearms.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #18 
Liberals goal to make Men not be protectors of the household.  But, I give kudos to this woman.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #19 

Georgia woman defends herself during home invasion shootout

GWINNETT COUNTY, Ga. -- Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) says watch this dramatic home security footage as three armed attackers break down the door to a home. Moments later the armed female resident fights back. 

One invader is dead. Authorities are seeking the identities of the remaining two.

Police are hoping someone can help identify two home invaders. They were caught on camera as a woman in the house shot at them. “She exercised her right to defend her livelihood and property,” Cpl. Deon Washington with the Gwinnett County Police Department told Channel 2’s Nicole Carr.

Surveillance video from inside the home shows the Gwinnett County woman rush from her bedroom and rapidly unload all her bullets on the three men who kicked in her front door.

The woman is a local restaurant manager who was staying in a housemate’s Spring Drive home for work-related reasons. She heard the three intruders break into the home around 4 a.m. Friday. Video shows the men have guns clearly in hand. Police said the men were looking for cash when they met their match.

As they exchange fire with drywall debris clouding the dark home, the video shows one man run through a glass door. Another man died of his injuries in the driveway. (read more)

This woman demonstrate a combat technique known as "violence of action."

The little lady was clearly outmanned and outgunned, but her violent attack confused the invaders, forcing them to flee for their lives.

She sure knows how to use that pistol.

And where was her male roommate in all of this? He comes out when it's all over. Shame!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #20 

Obama advocates for U. N. gun treaty ratification

pic497.jpg

Scott Johnson (Powerline) is reporting that Team Obama upped its commitment to get the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty ratified, a tall order since a bipartisan coalition of 50 senators have already said they oppose the gun treaty Secretary of State John Kerry signed three years ago.

Second Amendment advocates are concerned the treaty could provide an international law rationalization for a national gun registry in the United States, and is overly vague.

"The language is so vague is could almost mean anything. A lot could be done to rationalize gun control. The treaty has no prohibitions, no thou-shalt-nots," Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, told The Daily Signal. "President [Barack] Obama has for some time used as a defense a cell phone and a pen and not the Constitution or even a treaty for taking action."

On Aug. 22, the Second Conference of State Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty was held in Geneva. According to the State Department, the U.S. representative to the conference, William Malzahn, said the U.S. wanted to ratify the treaty that establishes export and import controls for combat vehicles, aircraft, and small arms and light weapons, but was already currently complying.

The United States remains committed to the Arms Trade Treaty, which we signed in September 2013. We are still working on the package to transmit the treaty to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. It is not clear when we will complete this, but we are actively working on it. … As we pursue ratification, let me assure everyone that the United States is already fully compliant with the requirements of the [Arms Trade Treaty] as the U.S. national control system exceeds those requirements.

Currently, 79 countries have ratified the treaty dealing with arms exports and imports, but diplomats from 109 countries participated in the gathering.

"The treaty has no prohibitions, no thou-shalt-nots," @larrypratt says.

The treaty states that: "Each State Party shall establish and maintain a national control system, including a national control list, in order to implement the provisions of this Treaty." It goes on to say, "Each State Party is encouraged to include in those records: the quantity, value, model/type, authorized international transfers of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1), conventional arms actually transferred, details of exporting State(s), importing State(s), transit and trans-shipment State(s), and end users, as appropriate."

Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs Claudia Ruiz Massieu told the group that of the guns used to commit crimes in Mexico, "We found that more than 70 percent were related to a buyer or distributor in the United States."

Massieu also said at the conference, "Mexico welcomes the strenuous and sincere efforts of President Barack Obama to establish administrative measures to strengthen controls on the possession and sale of weapons."

The State Department did not clearly answer the question about whether the 70 percent figure is accurate, but said the United States is working with Mexico to prevent gun trafficking into the country.

Ultimately, it's a border issue, said Ted Bromund, senior research fellow in U.S.-Anglo relations for The Heritage Foundation.

"The smuggling of guns from the U.S. into Mexico, the smuggling of guns from U.S. to any country, is already illegal," Bromund told The Daily Signal. "The problem is that the border is not controlled. Guns go south because the border is open. The answer is effective border patrol by the U.S. and Mexico. Mexico will never talk about that."

The Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, which has been amended several times over the years, already give the executive branch essential control over the movement of weapons in and out of the United States, Bromund said.

The Arms Trade Treaty went into effect on Christmas Eve 2014, but the administration has never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification, where it would require 67 senators voting for it to pass. After Kerry signed on in 2013, 50 senators—including three Democrats—signed a letter to Obama expressing concern the treaty was overly "vague and easily politicized" and could encourage a national gun registry.

It's a horrible treaty, Bromund said, but it won't likely lead to more gun control.

"Are people using it to justify gun control? Yes," Bromund said. "But what is the mechanism to achieve that? This is about exports or imports. In theory, a judge could say the United States must respect the [Arms Trade Treaty] and that all arms transactions within the U.S. are subject to it, but that would be a huge stretch."

The treaty has been such an administrative disaster that it likely will have no impact at all, Bromund said. He noted the treaty is almost entirely European countries rarely living up to the reporting requirements of the treaty.  

"I basically think we are winning on this. This is not going to work," Bromund said. "It's turning into nothing but boring bureaucratic meetings. The gun controllers will lose interest and find another toy."

A recent report by Bromund looked at reporting problems, among other failings of the participants.

States parties to the [Arms Trade Treaty] are already failing to meet its reporting requirements. As of Aug. 15, 2016, of the 66 states parties that were supposed to file an initial report on their implementation of the treaty by that date, only 49 had done so, and of these, 33 were in Europe. As of the same date, of the 83 states parties, only 46 (32 of them in Europe) had filed an annual report for 2015 on authorized imports and exports of conventional arms, a report due on May 31, 2016. In short, treaty reporting is lagging badly, and outside Europe, few nations are complying even nominally with the most basic treaty requirements.

Obama just signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty without the Senate's advice and consent by calling the treaty something else.

What's to stop him from doing the same here?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #21 

Hillary Clinton's tactic -- civil firearms forfeiture

  pic147.jpg 

Fred Lucas (Politichicks) says if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, it is likely that your Second Amendment rights will mean nothing. The constitutional protections we have depended on for years have failed when the liberals control a court; and it is likely that Hillary will redefine all courts.

The liberals' successful record of civil asset forfeitures provides a fine example of how they can get around the constitutional protections provided by the Fifth and Second Amendments. In many civil asset forfeiture cases, the citizen has not been found guilty of any crime, but the government swoops in to seize -- pardon me, to force the forfeiture of -- their property and cash. This is a civil act on the part of government, not a criminal action. So, fighting their legal teams and sympathetic judges is horribly expensive and often useless.

From the liberal successes we can predict how a Hillary government will use legalities and mutant judgements to seize your firearms, along with your ammunition without touching the Second Amendment. The stage is already set. A search of proposals in Congress shows that there are over 2,000 filings with "gun" & "control" in their bodies.  Over two thousand! Each has a new angle on how to restrict gun purchases and possession, all in the name of protection and safety -- and it's getting worse.

On June 27, 2016 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Voisine & Armstrong v. United States, that persons who are convicted of misdemeanor assault may be prohibited by law from possessing a firearm -- a misdemeanor! In reading the opinion of Justice Kagan, I was struck by the energy of this ruling. It makes no difference between a person intentionally harming another or a person accidentally causing harm in a domestic dispute. It blurs the distinction between actual and attempted use of physical force; it even includes "offensive touching" as a crime.

Bottom line: This ruling has made it far easier for government to confiscate firearms and ammunition.

The Second Amendment's clause "shall not be infringed" has meant little to the courts for decades. Now it means almost nothing, because under the right circumstances -- such as angering a liberal -- touching a person can cause you to lose your Second Amendment rights! The wild rulings have erected a new playground for spirited attorneys and their clients to obtain large settlements and revocations of our constitutional rights, despite our Constitution's "protections."

Let's get back to Hillary Clinton. Her coded speech is interesting. When she stated that she will not repeal the Second Amendment, we should take that as a warning that she will control firearms in another way. It is assured that Hillary and company will employ the liberal tactic of the manipulation and mutation of law to make a repeal unnecessary. Once they set up a corrupted justice system they can use the courts and their attorneys to portray any person who desires a certain type of gun, or more than fifty rounds of ammunition, as a dangerous person. From that point you will see the firearms forfeiture process take wing.

There is a possibility that a massive seizure of firearms may leave the civil arena. The conservative's straight-line, constitutional thinking has been continuously out-litigated by the liberals' creative, far-fetched thinking and mutations of justice. So, in the liberals' next creative application of law, it is reasonable to expect them to use a phrase from the Constitution which gives incredible powers to the government: "the public Safety may require it."

These words are from Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which gives Congress, under certain circumstances, the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Why should gun control be any different when the public safety may require the new restrictions? If you read the pages of resolutions before Congress, you will see that the "whereas" sections are packed with statistics and examples of how dangerous guns are. The liberals see public safety as a tool to solve the gun problem.

Don't take the gun grab with indifference. During the Republican Convention, former Navy Seal Marcus Luttrell said "Your war is here! You don't have to find it!" This war is to keep our nation from losing to two enemies: Islam and Liberalism. We have to get serious about this election. The armchair warriors with their "Molon Labe" bumper stickers are good talk, but they're just talk. We have to do everything we can to stop Hillary Clinton from winning the presidency. Our republican form of government cannot survive a shot from a Hillary presidency.

I will end this with a note from a great founding father, Samuel Adams:

"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation -- enlightened as it is -- if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." 

When our nation's future is at stake, I advise our patriots to vote with that in mind.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #22 

The State Department turns to taxation in an effort to undercut the 2nd Amendment

pic125.jpg

Tim Brown (Constitution.com) reminds that 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, en entity that 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[image] and scopes[image] 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[image]‘s Atlas Shrugged[image]? 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."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Capt Joe

Registered:
Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #23 
http://www.nssf.org/msr/PDF/MSR-PocketFactCard.pdf

This is an important card to carry with you when your "assault" rifle friends start to spew the Democrat talking points.

__________________
**** Hillary=Obama 2.0 ****
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

Democrats to charge gun control hill again

pic59.jpg

John Hinderaker (Powerline) says one aspect of the Democrats' convention that we haven't commented on is that gun control was front and center. The Associated Press headlines: "Clinton, Dems put gun control at center of convention stage."

With mothers of police violence victims on the stage and anti-gun protesters in the streets, Hillary Clinton and Democrats are giving gun control and efforts to curb police violence a starring role at their summer convention.

Clinton has made gun safety one of the foundations of her presidential campaign, vowing to overcome the legendary resistance of gun-rights advocates and their GOP allies to push for expanded criminal background checks and a renewal of a ban on assault weapons.

More gun control has never been a winning issue for the Democrats -- not on the national stage, anyway. It recent years it has been used mostly as a means of whipping up the Democrats' base, but conventions are staged for a broader audience, and I take seriously Hillary's statements to the effect that it is a key part of her agenda. Apparently the Democrats are heartened by recent polls indicating that support for anti-gun measures is growing. This shouldn't be surprising, given the extraordinary publicity accorded to every "shooter" incident.

But is more gun control now a winning issue for the Democrats? I doubt it, for a couple of reasons.

First, they don't have any plausible proposals. "Universal background checks" are fine as a sound byte, but no one seriously thinks that imposing such a requirement on people who are not firearms dealers will have any impact whatsoever on crime or terrorism. Similarly, "assault weapons," a category that exists only in the realm of political fantasy, are used in a vanishingly small number of crimes. They were banned for ten years, and the effect was zero; therefore, the ban expired. The Democrats might as well agitate for reinstating Prohibition. Do Democrats learn from experience? Apparently not. We would all like to see fewer murders, but it is hard to get traction with a political issue when you have nothing constructive to say about it.

Second, the Democrats face, as always, a substantial intensity gap. Support for more gun control is perhaps widespread, but is also soft, especially given that the Democrats have no practical proposals to offer. Opposition to more gun control, on the other hand, may be more narrow, but it is far more intense. This calculus hasn't changed much; while there are fewer rural gun owners than there were a couple of decades ago, due to the decline in rural population, there are more urban and suburban gun owners.

I suspect that the Democrats suffer from the Pauline Kael syndrome: everyone they know wants to ban guns, so how can it possibly be a losing political issue? In November, maybe they will find out.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #25 

This is the best explanation of the 2nd Amendment - Right to Bear Arms by a Black American (a brother)

Check it out.... PREACH!

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved