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 2 of 34      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #26 

While you weren't looking, Obama passed another anti-gun executive order

pic1012.jpg

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that on July 22, as his party gathered in Philadelphia to crown Hillary, the Obama administration legislated with executive fiat.

It came via the US State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), which is primarily responsible for administering the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). and its implementing rules, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

The DDTC is labeling commercial gunsmiths as "manufacturers" for performing relatively simple work, such as threading a barrel or fabricating a small custom part for an older firearm. Under the AECA, "manufacturers" are required to register with DDTC at significant expense or risk onerous criminal penalties.

This dictate came with no warning and it came very suddenly and without any input from the affected businesses. He bypassed all formalities of "rule making" [which is actually legislating]. He does whatever he wants now.

It is confusing and expected to put a chill on gunsmithing.

The regime has made a spring or a flocculate from the magazine of a controlled firearm subject to the same regulatory framework as the firearm itself.

Anyone who engages in "manufacturing" must register with DDTC. and pay the fee of $2,250 per year. They must wade through the bureaucratic maze meant for manufacturers.

It applies to a business that only occasionally engages in this work. It may bring the businesses under the scope of other agencies such as GCA and it confuses gunsmithing with manufacturing, all under different federal laws.

DDTC's move is meant to expand the regulatory sweep of the AECA/ITAR and culling many smaller commercial gunsmithing operations that do not have the means to pay the registration fee and the sophistication to negotiate DDTC's confusing morass of bureaucracy. Read more at NRAILA

This should remind people of the unfettered abuse of our laws by this administration and the presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton who has said she "thinks the Supreme Court was wrong" on Heller.

This election is about not only the Second Amendment, it's about the entire Bill of Rights. If one falls they all fall.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, leftists aka Progressives typically do not believe that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but rather a right conferred upon militias.

The First Amendment is under fire with Citizen's United and many other laws they hope to pass such as hate crime laws and anti-blogger laws meant to silence the opposition.

The Left's ongoing efforts to minimize and dismiss a right that is clearly set forth in the text of the Second Amendment contrast with their view of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments;

The Left has used due process language to conjure out of thin air an array of "rights" -- including privacy, birth control, abortion, and same-sex "marriage" -- that are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Whether you agree with the end result or not, they are abusing their authority.

The Tenth Amendment -- which provides that "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" -- may be the most unpopular amendment of all to leftists, as it sharply limits the scope of federal power. In practice, our swollen, intrusive, and wasteful federal government generally ignores the Tenth Amendment out of existence.

How many times has the left called the Constitution "outdated" or an "old piece of paper"? One of our Supreme Court justices, Justice Ginsberg has said she prefers the South African Constitution.

Comrade Cass Sunstein, Obama's former regulatory czar, has said he believes in an economic Bill of Rights.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's economic Bill of Rights, which Sunstein refers to, and which he claims Obama is emulating, includes the following:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

This completely changes our Bill of Rights and our nation from one of individual integrity and from a nation of people that are entitled to the pursuit of happiness to one in which the big government assumes all responsibility over our lives and assumes responsibility for our happiness over which we will have no control.

Responsibility goes out the window and we become a government-dependent welfare nation. It closely resembles the Socialist UN's Bill or Rights.

Socialism has wreaked havoc throughout the world and this is what the Democrat Party, wholly taken over by the far-left, wants for all of us.

If given half a chance, the Democrat Party will destroy us. It's already begun.



__________________
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  #27 

Addendum to Capt Joe's posts (just above)

This chart tells you all you need to know about guns and "gun violence."

pic993.jpg

Source of the data is the U. S. Center for Disease Control.



__________________
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  #28 
For those of you interested in the gun control paradigm, read this article on Japanese gun control.
My footnotes to this very interesting article:

1.  Japan is a homogeneous society
2.  There are no minorities
3.  There are no refugees admitted

We have a problem here because of "that which cannot be said".

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

__________________
**** Hillary=Obama 2.0 ****
Capt Joe

Registered:
Posts: 246
Reply with quote  #29 
Witness the knife killings at a rest home in Japan and today's ISIS knife beheading of a Catholic priest in France.

When you ban guns, the evil doers use knives and busses.

Oh how stupid you are on the left! You don't understand the basics of evil. Let's ban ASSAULT rifles, ASSAULT knives, ASSAULT baseball bats, ASSAULT machetes, ASSAULT IED'S, ASSAULT hands, ASSAULT poisons, ASSAULT gases etc etc etc. Evil doers are like cockroaches. You must find their nests and exterminate them. (Generally, guns do a fine job of extermination. Banning them is like taking away the powders and sprays from the Terminix guy.)

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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #30 

Clinton delegate explains how Democrats will ban all guns

In this video, a Project Veritas journalist encounters a Hillary Clinton Alternate Delegate who discusses how the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton hide the fact that they want to ban all guns.


__________________
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  #31 

NRA exec says it is "a lie" Clinton won't take your guns

Michelle R. Martinelli (GreatFallsTribune) is reporting that Chris Cox, the top lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, told USA TODAY that Hillary Clinton wants to take away peoples' guns, and when she says that is not her goal, "It's another lie from Hillary Clinton."

Speaking at a USA TODAY Newsmakers event during the Republican National Convention, Cox -- who heads the NRA Institute for Legislative Action -- said, "We know with 100 percent certainty that Hillary Clinton will be an unmitigated disaster when it comes to the rights of law-abiding gun owners."

Cox said he has no doubt that Trump will be a strong supporter of gun rights, "So truly, you could make a very valid argument that the 2nd Amendment is on the ballot in November."

The NRA takes Clinton seriously when she says gun control is going to be a top priority if elected, Cox said, and her focus should instead be on terrorism or keeping the nation safe.

Cox became the organization’s first official to speak at a political convention when he addressed RNC delegates Tuesday at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland.


__________________
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  #32 

This crazy lesbian politician just decreed that most common firearms in America are illegal

pic926.jpg

Bob Owens (BearingArms) says Democrat Attorney General Maura Healey announced today that she is unilaterally redefining what constitutes an "assault weapon" under Massachusetts law, in order to outlaw the sale of the most popular firearms sold in the United States.

The ban is effective immediately.

The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans "copies or duplicates" of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a "copy" or "duplicate" weapon is. They market "state compliant" copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.

That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.

Healey's arrogance is clear. I don't like that manufacturers complied with the letter of the law we passed, so I'm going to redefine what it means.

The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a "copy" or "duplicate" of a prohibited weapon. If a gun's operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it's a "copy" or "duplicate," and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.

Healey's "test" is arbitrary and capricious, as defining an operating system of a firearm as being "essentially the same" is ripe for prosecutorial abuse.

There are, after all, only a handful of basic operating systems for self-loading firearms:

  • direct gas impingment
  • long-stroke gas pistons
  • short-stroke gas piston
  • blowback
  • recoil-operated

But that's not the worst of it.

Healey also states that a firearm that "has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon" are also illegal. This is even more ripe for abuse than the blatantly unconstitutional and flippant "essentially the same" operating system test, as many firearms -- including those that are clearly not "assault weapons" by even the most insane definition -- share components with firearm on the list.

Here's a perfect example.

mossberg mvp scout

This bolt-action rifle is the Mossberg MVP Scout. It is designed to use the same magazines as a number of .308-caliber rifles absurdly defined as "assault weapons" by name and Healey's capricious "duplicate" definition under Massachusetts law. It also have a threaded muzzle designed to use common .30-caliber muzzle devices share with rifles on the "you can't have it, prole" list, and features sections of picatinny rail (both fixed and detachable) familiar to  a wide range of firearms, including many on the banned list. Because of these multiple "shared components," this bolt-action rifle is clearly defined as an "assault weapon" according to Healey's insane edict.

But be of good cheer, MAssholes. Princess Dictator Healey will graciously not send agents of the government to confiscate the millions of "Massachusetts-complaint" firearms in the possession of the proletariat, at least not yet.

We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday.

How generous of you, ma'am.

I'd like to remind Healey, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, and the citizens of the state that there have been unilateral attempts by power-crazed petty tyrants in Massachusetts history to strip the People of the right to bear those arms most useful for the common defense.

It didn't go well for them.

concord bridgeThe "shot heard 'round the world" -- Concord Bridge, April 19, 1775

The Second Amendment was written to reflect a preexisting natural right of citizens to bear arms of contemporary military utility for the defense of their individual lives and their communities from foreign enemies, domestic threats, and power-mad would-be despots.

Maura Healey has grossly exceeded her constitutional authority and has enacted by executive fiat a directive that would have roused our Founding Fathers to action.



__________________
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  #33 

Massachusetts Attorney General bans AR-15s and AKs

pic920.jpg

S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) is reporting that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey penned an article for The Boston Globe stating that she is banning all new "assault weapons" which she also calls "weapons of war" in her ignorance.

In the article for The Boston Globe, she blamed the Orlando terrorist killings on an AR-15 which isn't accurate on any level.

Her ban prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans "copies or duplicates" of those weapons. Gun manufacturers have been selling rifles without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock and she defines them as a copycat or duplicate.

Healey has made them illegal as well as any "watered-down version".

If the gun operates in essentially the same way as a banned weapon or is a copy, it is illegal. No "assault" weapon can be sold, altered or not.

This directive likely bans all AR and AK style rifles in Massachusetts.

People who already own the guns can keep them -- for now -- the AG assures them. How kind of her.

Healey claims that:

In the face of utter inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence. If Washington won't use its power to get these guns off our streets, we will. Not only do we have the legal authority to do so, we have a moral obligation to do so.

She has a moral obligation to uphold the Constitution and she has no legal right to pass laws which is what she is doing.

What she is doing doesn't do a thing about the criminals and gangs. All she is controlling are lawful gun owners. The leftists always say they want guns off the streets and she also says that in this article. To get the guns off the streets, they have to go after guns, lawful guns period.

pic919.jpg


__________________
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  #34 

Why the NRA is awesome!

Dan Joseph explains the incremental strategy progressives pursue to deny us our fundamental rights and why the NRA is awesome.

Remember, if you give the Left an inch they'll take a mile.


__________________
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  #35 

We really have to be concerned with the way Obama sees the world

pic657.jpg 



__________________
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  #36 

There are now more armed bureaucrats than Marines

  pic643.jpg

Dave Blount (Moonbattery) is reporting that Democrat congresscritters recently finished making fools of themselves by staging an infantile sit-in to protest resistance to their incremental repeal of the Second Amendment. They feel strongly that law-abiding American citizens should be denied the right to bear arms. Meanwhile, this provides context:

There are now more non-military government employees who carry guns than there are U.S. Marines, according to a new report.

Open the Books, a taxpayer watchdog group, released a study Wednesday that finds domestic government agencies continue to grow their stockpiles of military-style weapons, as Democrats sat on the House floor calling for more restrictions on what guns American citizens can buy.

The “Militarization of America” report found civilian agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment between 2006 and 2014. …

Open the Books found there are now over 200,000 non-military federal officers with arrest and firearm authority, surpassing the 182,100 personnel who are actively serving in the U.S. Marines Corps.

The IRS spent nearly $11 million on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment for its 2,316 special agents. The tax collecting agency has billed taxpayers for pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns, semi-automatic Smith & Wesson M&P15s, and Heckler & Koch H&K 416 rifles, which can be loaded with 30-round magazines.

Under Obama, the IRS has become notoriously politicized and should be abolished as Ted Cruz proposed. The same could be said for the EPA, which destroys the enemies of the far left in the name of bogus enviro-Jacobin ideology.

The EPA spent $3.1 million on guns, ammo, and equipment, including drones, night vision, “camouflage and other deceptive equipment,” and body armor.

Here’s some more context for the sit-in. At least 26 of the participants own guns themselves:

Congressional Democrats ended their 25-hour sit-in on the House floor [Thursday] afternoon, failing to force a vote on two pieces of gun legislation. The controversial sit-in included 26 Democratic lawmakers who themselves own guns, Heat Street learned after examining 2013 USA Today data on congressional firearms ownership. The participants also included 12 more Democrats in Congress who either didn’t respond to USA Today’s gun survey or declined to say whether or not they possessed a firearm.

Even those congresscritters who don’t own guns are of course protected by men with guns. They say they deserve protection

New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel says members of Congress “deserve” and “need” people with firearms protecting them in the U.S. Capitol building, but he does not want law-abiding residents in his own district to be armed for self-protection.

…but believe the citizens they live off of as parasites do not even deserve the natural right to protect themselves.

DEM-HOUSE-SIT-IN
The congressional gun-grabber sit-in.

__________________
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  #37 

26 of the Democrats who participated in the congressional gun control sit-in own guns

pic633.jpg

Jillian Kay Melchior (HeatStreet) is reporting that congressional Democrats ended their 25-hour sit-in on the House floor this afternoon, failing to force a vote on two pieces of gun legislation. The controversial sit-in included 26 Democratic lawmakers who themselves own guns, Heat Street learned after examining 2013 USA Today data on congressional firearms ownership. The participants also included 12 more Democrats in Congress who either didn’t respond to USA Today’s gun survey or declined to say whether or not they possessed a firearm.

The sit-in, launched by civil-rights leader Rep. John Lewis, centered on two pieces of proposed gun legislation. One would expand background checks to cover all commercial gun sales; the other seeks tougher prohibitions against gun purchases for terror suspects.

The participation of Democratic gun owners can be viewed as the pursuit of reasonable compromise by left-wing firearm fans -- or, potentially, as hypocrisy.

Here are some past posts about guns by weapons-owning Dems who participated in the sit-in (cursor down).

An article in the Daily Caller sums up these hypocrites attitude:

New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel says members of Congress "deserve" and "need" people with firearms protecting them in the U.S. Capitol building, but he does not want law-abiding residents in his own district to be armed for self-protection.


__________________
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  #38 

NRA didn't just hit Obama back with new ad, they gave him a BIG defiant middle finger

As Democrats ramp up their attack on so-called "assault weapons" the NRA has hit back with a video by former Navy SEAL Dom Raso explaining why the AR-15 is a common sense weapon for self-defense.

Raso described the weapon as "easy to learn and easy to use" and explained again, for those who don't get it, that the Second Amendment doesn't have a thing to do with hunting.

He also chastised presumptive Democrat presidential nominee for her stance on banning the firearm.

"Hillary Clinton says 'weapons of war' have no place on our streets and that we need to ban AR15s immediately," he said in the five-minute video.

"She knows AR-15s are a powerful defense against radical Islamic terrorists," Raso continued. "That's why she's been surrounded by guards armed with them for the past three decades."

"The only way for us to stay free was by having whatever guns the bad guys have," Raso said. "This firearm gives average people the advantage they so desperately need and deserve to protect their life, liberty, and happiness."

Remembering his time in the SEALs, he said, "I fought this enemy face-to-face for 12 years, I know how they think, and I know the hatred that burns inside them."

Watch the video . . .

Dell Hill says actually, there's no such thing as an "assault rifle." The term "assault rifle" was coined a few years ago by the political Left to create an image in your mind that ALL rifles are "assaultive"….and, of course, they're not, and "assault" would refer to an action taken by the operator, not something the weapon could or would do all by itself. In that regard, I guess a bayonet should be called an "assault knife" because it's primary use was to stab people to death -- but I digress.

Those tricky devils on the Left would have you believe that all rifles capable of firing more than one round of ammunition at a time are fully automatic machine guns. Numb­skull, Alan Grayson recently declared one assault rifle was capable of firing over 700 rounds per minute. That's simply a total lie:

1) You are not physically able to pull a trigger 700 times in one minute.

2) If you could pull a trigger 700 times in one minute, the barrel would heat up so fast it would melt long before that minute was up.

3) There are no 700 round magazines available, so you'd have to stop and replace empty magazines with full ones and that can't be done instantly, either.

Here's the deal. Fully automatic firearms will fire all of the ammunition loaded simply by pulling and holding the trigger. If you release the trigger, the weapon stops firing. We call those weapons "machine guns", and they're regularly issued to military personnel for use in a war setting. Note: Those shoulder fired weapons have a "selector switch" which allows the shooter to change the firing protocol from automatic to semi­automatic and/or "safe" position. In the "safe" position, the weapon will not fire. In the semi­automatic position the operator can fire one round each time he pulls the trigger. He must release the trigger and then pull it again in order to fire another round. That process must be repeated for every round he fires. In the automatic setting, he can pull and hold the trigger and it will keep firing until he releases the trigger or the ammunition supply is exhausted.

Firearms sold to civilians, by law, are not capable of being fired in the automatic (machine gun) manner, but our political friends on the Left would have you believe they are.

Hand­held machine guns are also popular with governmental security agencies, such as the U.S. Secret Service. We got to see the famous UZI deployed when President Ronald Reagan was attacked, but even then they were used in a defensive posture, rather than as an attack, or "assaultive" behavior.

As for rifles, it's the appearance of the various makes and calibers that causes them to be called different names. Look at these two firearms:

pic584.jpg

Both are semi­automatic .223 caliber rifles. The one on top looks just like a varmint hunting rifle, while the one on the bottom looks like a military weapon. These are basically the SAME weapon, but the bottom one gets called the ugly "assault rifle" because it looks like a military weapon.

It goes without saying that the "AR" in AR­15 stands for ArmaLite, the company that originally patented the weapon's design. The AR­15 rifle was first built in 1958 by ArmaLite as a selective fire weapon. Since then, it has been produced in many different versions by many different companies in many different countries. By comparison to many far more popular rifles, the .223 caliber model is nowhere near as powerful as the .308 or .3006 models previously used by military forces and now the hunter's favorites.

One thing you might find incredibly interesting. Of all the panty waists calling for gun control, I strongly suspect that 99% of them have never owned or operated a firearm in their entire life and they don't know much of anything about them.


__________________
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  #39 

Loretta Lynch overrules the FBI -- the "No Fly List" can be used to ban gun buyers

pic576.jpg 

NewsMax is reporting that Attorney General Loretta Lynch has overruled FBI Director James Comey on a key issue involving guns and terrorist watch lists -- a move that two unlikely allies, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Rifle Association, oppose.

Lynch says the Obama administration supports banning the sale of firearms to people on terrorist watch lists -- a declaration that flies in the face of Comey's belief that denying those sales could hinder investigations of potential terrorists.

The Washington Times reports that in a statement issued Thursday, the Justice Department said it wants Congress to pass the so-called "no-fly, no-buy" plan Democratic lawmakers are pushing.

"The amendment gives the Justice Department an important additional tool to prevent the sale of guns to suspected terrorists by licensed firearms dealers while ensuring protection of the department's operational and investigative sensitivities," Justice Department spokeswoman Dena Iverson said.

But WND.com reports that the ACLU and NRA don't agree.

"Restrictions like bans on gun purchases by people on 'watch lists' are ineffective, unconstitutional, or both," the NRA said this week.

And in an ACLU position paper titled, "Until the No Fly List is fixed, it shouldn't be used to restrict people's freedoms," the group's National Security Project Director wrote:

"[T]he standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the 'No Fly List' because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating."

I was talking to a friend of mine, a lieutenant on our fire department, about this yesterday. He told me his 10-year old son is on the "No Fly List" and he's been trying to get him removed for almost two years.


__________________
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  #40 

Attacking the 2nd Amendment is now part of homeland security

Dave Blount (Moonbattery) syas only in the upside-down, inside-out, back-assward world of Obama's fundamentally transformed USSA would the Department of Homeland Security react to a major Muslim terror attack by conspiring to make us less secure. Stand by for a barrage of banality laced with anticonstitutional intent from Obama fundraiser turned DHS chief Jeh Johnson and his authoritarian enablers at CBS News:

Sorry to be over-obvious, but disarming people who face a growing threat does not enhance their security.

To be even more over-obvious, if we can be denied our inalienable rights on the grounds that some bureaucrat for whatever inscrutable reasons has placed us on a "terrorist watch list," then we have no rights.

Incidentally,

The Islamic terrorist who carried out the horrific, atrocious attack on Pulse nightclub in Orlando Sunday morning was employed by G4S security company as a licensed, professional security guard with the ability to carry a firearm on duty. He worked at the company for years.

G4S is contracted by the Department of Homeland Security to protect federal buildings, including nuclear facilities, and is responsible for providing security protocol for major transportation hubs around the country.

That is, Johnson's Department of Homeland Insecurity employed Omar Mateen's employer. No doubt every Muslim on the payroll helps G4S get government contracts by earning diversity Brownie points. Maybe that's why they wouldn't fire him despite the red flags.


__________________
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  #41 

Hillary wants to strip Constitutional rights of anyone the FBI investigates

Rachel Stoltzfoos (DailyCaller) is reporting that Hillary Clinton said anyone the FBI is monitoring for suspected terror ties should be banned from buying a gun Saturday, suggesting the federal government should be able to strip U.S. citizens of their constitutional right to buy a gun before convicting them of a crime.

"If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked," Clinton said at a rally in Cleveland. "And you shouldn't be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show."

The presumptive Democratic nominee was responding to news early Sunday that a man inspired by the Islamic State shot and killed 49 people at a gay night club in Orlando.

"And yes, if you're too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America," Clinton continued, again implying that the subjective judgment from the government that a person is "dangerous" should be grounds for preventing a U.S. citizen from exercising their constitutional rights.

Clinton herself, of course, is tied up in an FBI investigation right now into her use of a private email server as Secretary of State.

pic525.jpg

All of the Democrat politicians have been damning the AR-15 "assault rifle," but the Orlando terrorist used a Sig Sauer MCX:

pic529.jpg

Let's get something straight. Every purchase of a firearm requires the buyer to submit to a federal background check -- and that includes purchases at a gun show or on the Internet. The transfer must be made by a holder of a federal firearm license (FFL).

Now, can you buy a gun at a gun show without the formal transfer process? Yes -- but that transfer is a crime.

Hillary is full of crap and is -- once again -- lying to the American People.


__________________
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  #42 

So here we have a devout Muslim with an anger management problem. Beats his wife, antagonizes fellow workers, cheers after the 9/11 massacre and gets investigated by the FBI twice BUT:

1. Passes The FDLE (Florida Dept of Law Enforcement) background check for a G License (armed security guard

2. Passes the FBI NIC background check for Florida Concealed Weapon License

3. Passes (conceivably) a Federal contractor's background check for security guard AND:

using that pile of permits, purchases a long rifle and a handgun.

The left pushes universal background checks. We already have universal background checks. He passed all the checks. How has that worked out? Did Omar the Shooter buy his weapons at a gun show using the hilarious gun show "loophole"?

If he couldn't access firearms wouldn't Omar the Shooter become Omar the Bomber?

The problem isn't gun control. The Problem is Islam that inspires maniacs like Omar.

Now lets examine the Florida law (FS 790.06) that prohibits concealed carry in venues that exclusively serve alcohol. In Florida you cannot carry a weapon in such a venue. You can however concealed carry a weapon in a restaurant that has a bar and serves food. You cannot be at the bar area, you cannot go to the restroom if you walk through the "bar area" but you can sit at a table in the food area having dinner and also have a drink. I would guess that the Pulse nightclub did not fit that description. So in effect the Pulse nightclub is a gun free zone under Florida law. Just like a school. Now where will Omar the Shooter go? Why did Willie Sutton rob banks?

If someone was armed might Omar the Shooter have been terminated early. We can't prevent Omar from getting a gun. We can't prevent Omar from making a bomb. We can't prevent Omar from using a machete or nail gun.  BUT we can shoot him dead before the carnage piles up!

Wake up liberals. The LGBT crowd casts suicide votes for you very time! Maybe they will wake up.


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

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #43 

The Democrat's response to the Florida Islamist terror attack

pic515.jpg 

In his remarks, Obama was quick to renew the call for more gun control legislation and restrictions.

Barack Obama:

Today marks the most deadly shooting in American history. The shooter was apparently armed with a handgun and a powerful assault rifle. This massacre is therefore a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. And we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be. And to actively do nothing is a decision as well.

Hillary Clinton:

We need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals. This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio:

We mourn with the people of Orlando and the LGBT community as a whole on the news that -- once again -- we have lost precious lives to the gun.

Sen. Bob Casey (D -- PA):

I plan to introduce a bill that would bar someone convicted of hate crimes from purchasing firearms.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D -- CT):

Said Senate inaction to prevent gun violence has made lawmakers "complicit in this public health crisis."

Rahm Emanuel

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.

And Hollywood added its two cents.

Actress Susan Sarandon:

Prayers are not enough. Time for a ban on automatic weapons. There is only one reason they exist and that is to kill our fellow man.

Cher tweeted, in all caps:

If nothing else, automatic assault rifles & those that can be made in2 assault weapons w/ huge clips … must be banned. #AssaultWeaponsOnlyKillMan.

Comedian Chris Rock posted on Twitter a picture of an AR15 above this text:

Military weapons belong in the military.

That strikes of opportunism: using an act of terror to press a political agenda. There are many effective and important counterterrorism measures, but gun control isn't one. Restricting Americans' access to firearms has never been on the list of any responsible counterterrorism agenda. It was not, for example, mentioned in the 9/11 commission report (which was tasked to look at all terrorists attack on the United States, not just the Sept. 11 attacks). Gun control was not mentioned in the report for good reason: It is not a efficacious responsible measure.

Obama may believe he has a case to make for pressing for more gun control -- but there could not be a more inappropriate time to hijack the news to press his policies.

Even outside of Obama's tasteless attempt to use the tragic killings to push something as ineffective to battling terrorism as gun control, there are many reasons why average Americans question this administration's commitment and capacity to fight global terrorism.

As soon as news broke of the terrorist attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando, media and political elites took to social media to control the narrative following the massacre.

They want you to believe the slaughter is a signal of the need for stricter gun control.

But here's the thing:

Bars in Florida are gun free zones.

Using liberal logic, then, Pulse nightclub is as controlled an environment as it gets and no attack ought to have ever taken place there.

Truth is: Guns aren't the problem, radical Islam is the problem. But, when it comes to jihad being carried out in the west, the chattering classes operate on a policy of "don't ask, don't tell."

And, taking into account the fact that over 90% of people Pew polled from such regions think homosexuality ought not be tolerated, there's more to this story than the establishment media and politicians would have you believe.

A clash of civilizations has arrived on our doorstep -- Islamic hate for homosexuals and a freedom-loving western worldview.

Of course there are good Muslims who value our pluralistic societal structure, but there are others who hate gays, Jews, and uncovered women, too.

And the fallout after the Orlando attacks shows Muslim feelings matter more than gay lives in the pecking order for the politically correct.

When will we in the West be free to discuss the underlying issues of political Islam and its hateful mindset?

After 9/11, Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, and now Orlando. How many must die before we move the debate from under Obama's haze of political correctness that now clouds the respectful dialogue we owe to the dead?

If Islam is the religion of peace, why aren't its extremists extremely peaceful?

Because Islam doesn't have a peace problem. It has a hate and violence problem.

And it's about damn time we start talking about it.

pic511.jpg


__________________
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  #44 

The long game of cultural change and the Second Amendment

pic503.jpg

David Risselada (FreedomOutpost) says the right to life and liberty, these are the hallmark traits that for over two hundred years defined America and her citizens. Wars were fought to establish these principles; that men were capable of living a life of self governance, and that the dignity of each individual was more important than that of the collective. Our founders recognized that individual human beings possessed great ability and if left to their own devises in an environment of freedom, they would most times, act with moral restraint, recognizing that freedom required personal responsibility.  Times are changing and our country no longer represents these principles.

Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry a concealed weapon for self defense. This ruling not only violates the constitution, it goes against the very principles of life and liberty. It has long been assumed that personal protection was the responsibility of the individual, not the government. In fact, this has been the ruling in several Supreme Court cases. In Warren vs. The District of Columbia, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that a government is under no obligation to provide protective services to individual citizens. In Lynch vs. N.C. Department of Justice it was determined that police are only obligated to arrest criminals, not prevent criminal acts against individuals. Finally in Castle Rock vs. Gonzales it was found that an individual is not entitled to police protection even under a restraining order. In other words, you are on your own when it comes to personal protection. This is why the Second Amendment is so important, the right to keep and bear arms strikes directly at the heart of protecting life. How can you have a right to life if the ability to defend it is being taken from you? You simply can't, once that right is gone you are no longer the master of your own destiny.

The Second Amendment is a right that must be fought for at all costs. Sadly, many people may not realize the many fronts our gun rights are being assaulted from.  While people know the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court was wrong, they fail to see that the ruling is made to apply to future generations. The left is incredibly patient; they know that right now that ruling with have little sway over people, even the states it presides over, with a few exceptions. They also know however, what they are teaching your children about this country and gun ownership in particular, and that when these children grow up they will very likely accept a ruling like the one made by the 9th court. The left is playing a long game of cultural change where our liberties are lost at such an incremental pace, generation to generation, that no one seems to notice.

The very definition of what it means to be an American, what the constitution means, and what rights we have are all changing right before our very eyes through our education system.  For example, high school text books are re-writing the Second Amendment, giving it an entire different meaning. U.S. History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Exam defines the Second Amendment as something that only applies to state militias. The Amendment reads as follows in this textbook. "The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia." The word state, of course, implies an entity in control of the militia. This would equate to a standing army which was something the founders were adamantly opposed to.  The Constitution, for example, only authorizes the funding of a standing army for two years. After that period funding would have to be reauthorized. Another book suggests that people have the right to own guns provided they register them with the government, and yet another gives the student the opportunity to revise the Bill of Rights while suggesting they are outdated.  This is how they slowly change the culture.

Another way our education system is indoctrinating our children is by punishing them for having anything to do with a firearm. For example, Josh Welch was suspended from school for biting a pop-tart into the shape of a gun. This is happening on a frequent basis across our country, kids are being suspended for wearing shirts portraying guns, bringing toy guns to school, drawing pictures of guns and even playing cowboys and Indians. Not only that, they are also inflicting fear and panic by conducting intruder on campus drills, or active-shooter drills where they are taught to run and hide. While it is one thing to conduct drills for preparedness, it is something else entirely to deliberately induce panic. (Author's note: As a substitute teacher I witnessed this very thing. I can say with great confidence that these drills are being conducted to teach kids to fear firearms.) The end result of this indoctrination could likely be a weakened population ready and willing to surrender their firearms because they have been taught to fear them.

The left has been chipping away at our culture for the past one hundred years. Little by little they have infiltrated our institutions and changed the very nature of what it means to be an American.  When Barack Obama said we were five days away from fundamentally transforming America, he meant he was here to put the final touches on a process of social change that has turned America from a nation of rugged individualism to one where people beg the government to provide them safety. This is evident by observing what is taking places in our colleges and how Americans are now offended by everything.  The kids now begging for safe spaces are our future policy makers, politicians, police officers and soldiers. After a lifetime of anti-gun indoctrination it is unlikely that their positions will change.  We can petition our government and stage protests all we want. As long as the Left controls education we will lose the country.


__________________
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  #45 

Hillary Clinton refuses to say if the "right to bear arms" is a constitutional right

Sundance (ConservativeTreehouse) says not only does she not believe gun ownership is a constitutional right, she refuses to answer the question twice, notice the professional parseltongue:

"if it is a constitutional right"… blah blah blah.

"Shall Not Be Infringed" seems pretty clear to most Americans, and is the basis for the Heller decision (Justice Antonin Scalia) Clinton refuses to name specifically -- because to do so would prove her desire to eliminate the second amendment.

The Heller decision stemmed from the ridiculous Washington DC handgun bans.

Translation: "It depends on what the meaning of is, is."


__________________
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  #46 

Tom Brokaw tells college students that owning guns leads to terrorism

pic308.jpg
"I don't mean me, though"

Aleister (ProgressivesToday) is reporting that Tom Brokaw recently gave a commencement speech at the University of Mississippi and told students gun ownership will lead to more terrorism. The stupidity of such a statement is appalling.

Townhall reports:

Tom Brokaw Tells College Students Owning Firearms Leads to Terrorism

It's graduation season and thanks to universities' overwhelmingly tendency to choose liberal speakers over conservatives, college students are being fed a bunch of nonsense right before they enter the real world. The latest case in point: the University of Mississippi had the honor of having NBC's Tom Brokaw lecture them on guns during last weekend's commencement.

"I'm appalled by the determination of organizations and individuals to arm more people without any appreciation of the consequence of evermore lethal weapons in our midst," he said. "More guns and more firearm tolerance will mean more homegrown acts of terror."

"Yes, we have a constitutional right to own guns … but with that right comes a personal obligation to be on guard against the promiscuous use of guns (and) not to pretend that no limits means no trouble," he said.


__________________
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  #47 

Hillary opposes Heller

pic294.jpg

Sahil Kapur (Bloomberg) is reporting that Hillary Clinton believes a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that is the linchpin of an individual's right to own a gun was "wrongly decided," her policy adviser told Bloomberg Politics on Friday.

"Clinton believes the Heller case was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe, like safe storage laws to prevent toddlers from accessing guns," Maya Harris, a policy adviser to Clinton, said in an e-mailed statement. "In overturning Washington D.C.'s safe storage law, Clinton worries that Heller may open the door to overturning thoughtful, common sense safety measures in the future."

The stance by Clinton, the all-but-certain Democratic presidential nominee, carries potentially profound implications for the future of gun rights in the U.S.

In striking down a longstanding handgun ban in the District of Columbia, the D.C. v. Heller ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own a firearm for lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.

The author of the contentious 5-to-4 opinion was Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Republicans who control the Senate have vowed to block the confirmation of a successor until the next president is chosen. If Clinton, a lawyer before she entered politics, becomes president and chooses a nominee who reflects her view, a future Supreme Court could revisit, and potentially overturn, that ruling. Such a scenario could permit state and local governments to take stricter steps to restrict the sale of firearms in attempt to curb gun violence.

In addition, with several justices poised for possible retirements in the coming years -- as of Election Day, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 83, Anthony Kennedy will be 80 and Stephen Breyer will be 78 -- the next president's picks could have a profound impact on the future of gun rights in the country.

In her statement, Harris also took issue with remarks by presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump at the National Rifle Association convention Friday -- where he accepted the gun-rights lobby's endorsement -- that Clinton wants to "abolish" the Second Amendment.

"Along with the vast majority of Americans, Hillary Clinton believes there are common sense steps we can take at the federal level to keep guns out of the hands of criminals while respecting the 2nd Amendment. As both PolitiFact and Factcheck.org recently reported, Donald Trump is peddling falsehoods," Harris said. "Donald Trump's conspiracy theories are simply his latest attempt to divide the American people and distract from his radical and dangerous ideas, like his promise to mandate that every school in America allow guns in their classrooms."

While Trump is campaigning on a staunchly pro-gun-rights platform that includes granting a right to carry a firearm in all 50 states, Clinton has taken an aggressive stance for gun control, including strengthening mandatory background checks and banning assault weapons.


__________________
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  #48 

Clinton promises to attack gun owners on her "very first day" in office

Dave Dolbee (ShootersLog) says the NRA-ILA is a top source for news about issue that could affect our Second Amendment rights. Not that it is much of a surprise, but the Democrat frontrunner has pledged to assault the Second Amendment on day one if elected. As usual, she claims she wants to lower gun violence… by stepping on the throats of gun manufacturers.

pic265.jpg

In what has become as reliable as clockwork, with the passing of another week comes another Hillary Clinton attack on gun owners. This time, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination explained to supporters her intent to make an assault on gun rights and NRA one of her top priorities. A video of her comments has been distributed by Breitbart.com and can be viewed by clicking here.

Addressing an April 25 MSNBC "townhall" hosted by left-wing commentator Rachel Maddow, Clinton stated,

I really support everything President Obama said he would do through regulation on guns but we're going to start the very first day and tackle the gun lobby to try to reduce the outrageous number of people who are dying from gun violence in our country.

Later, the candidate spoke of her party's chances of taking control of the Senate, stating,

The Democrats have decided they will be led by Chuck Schumer and Chuck Schumer has been one of the most effective legislators in taking on the gun lobby. He and I worked together to get the Brady bill passed way back in my husband's administration. So I think that it's the kind of issue you have to start early, you have to work on it every day and we need to make it a voting issue.

A visibly agitated Clinton concluded her remarks on the subject by noting,

I'm going to keep talking about it, and we are going to make it clear that this has to be a voting issue. If you care about this issue, vote against people who give in to the NRA and the gun lobby all the time.

These comments make clear that gun owners and NRA would be in Clinton's crosshairs from the moment she assumes office. And thanks to Clinton's recent candor, gun owners don't have to guess at the types of restrictions Clinton has in mind for them. Clinton has supported a ban on popular semi-automatic firearms and endorsed an Australian-style confiscation scheme for carrying out her vision. Clinton has expressed her vehement opposition to the Right-to-Carry. Most disturbing, under Clinton's false interpretation of the Constitution, the Second Amendment does not protect and individual right to keep and bear arms and allows gun bans.

Somewhat of a political pragmatist, Barack Obama waited until he secured a second term before launching most of his efforts to restrict firearm ownership. Hillary Clinton is continually making clear that under her reign gun owners would receive no such reprieve.

This is why NRA members, along with their families and friends, must get involved in our efforts to secure a victory for gun owners this fall. At the bare minimum, gun owners must ensure that they and their loved ones are registered to vote. For those that can contribute more to our fight for freedom, NRA-ILA's Grassroots Division can connect you with volunteer opportunities anywhere in the country, and NRA has made it easier than ever to participate in our efforts. To register to vote or explore further opportunities to help, please visit NRA-ILA's Election Center at https://www.nraila.org/about/election-center/.



__________________
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  #49 

Gun industry added 100,000 jobs during Obama's reign

Barack Obama, whether he realized it or not, he actually boosted the economy by being the "gun salesman of the decade."


__________________
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  #50 

New surge in gun background checks reported by FBI

pic94.jpg

Fox13 is reporting that the year 2016 is still on pace to set a record for background checks for gun purchases, according to new data from the FBI.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported on Wednesday that there were 2,145,865 background checks in April. That's the slowest month so far this year, but it's a 25% increase from April 2015.

Background checks in every month this year have made double digit gains over 2015, which had a record number of requests for background checks. If the current pace keeps up, 2016 will beat last year's record.

There's a strong indication that the April slow-down is a cyclical phenomenon, rather than a sign that the gun craze is over. In every full year since the FBI started conducting background checks in 1998, April has been slower than March. The slow-downs tend to continue through the summer, and then background checks pick up again in the fall.

Background checks are not the same thing as gun sales, but they serve as a proxy. Background checks are conducted by the FBI with every gun purchase from a federally licensed dealer. Since one check can cover a single purchase of multiple guns, and since some purchases are not conducted by federally licensed dealers, the FBI data is not a precise read on gun sales.

But one thing is clear. The FBI background check data does show that gun sales are on the rise.

This trend began in December 2012 when 26 children and educators were massacred in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. That wasn't the only time that a mass shooting drove gun sales. The record month for background checks was December 2015, when 14 people were murdered in a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.

Gun sales, and therefore background checks, are driven by these events partly because Americans want to protect themselves. Gun purchasers are also afraid that mass shootings will prompt more gun control laws that will make it harder for them to get guns.

Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson, two of the biggest gun companies in the U.S., have reported double-digit gains in sales this year.

In the United States, there are at least 350 million firearms in civilian hands. Approximately 80 million were added under Obama.


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