Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

TSA

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Mainstream Media’s War on Guns Marches On

Gun ConfiscationGun Confiscation
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)-The war on guns marches on. Instead of concentrating on real solutions like getting rid of “gun free zones,” focusing on mental health, and allowing teachers to carry guns the mainstream media pushes “common sense” gun laws. These proposed laws are anything but common sense.

Texas shooting suspect’s choice of guns complicates debate over assault rifles,” reads the headlines in the Chicago Tribune.

The Texas shooter used a revolver and a shotgun to kill ten students. The Chicago Tribune article highlights that only the most extreme gun grabbers want to ban shotguns and revolvers. At least publicly. The article quickly points to the Las Vegas and the Parkland shootings to show more people died there.

“The reason most mass shootings are conducted with assault weapons is that shooters know full well what weapon to select, if they want to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time possible, and that’s an AR-15-style gun with a large-capacity magazine,” the article quotes Avery W. Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “If this shooter had had one of those, quite likely there would have been more deaths and injuries. But we don’t know.”

Gardiner is living in a world of hypotheticals. This tactic is one of the most commonly used techniques by the left. When a tragedy happens that proves your theory wrong, instead of accepting the evidence and reevaluating your theory, you change the reality by using hypotheticals. “It was bad, but it could have been really bad.”
Michael E. Diamond of NBC News calls gun culture a “dysfunctional mess.” They know the respect veterans have in the gun world, so they wheel out a vet who is anti-gun. They do this for two reasons. First, being in the military, the vet speaks from a place of authority even though this vet admits he really didn’t use a gun in the military.
The Second reason is that they want to try to frame it that every veteran agrees with the one outlier. Just look at the headline “The Texas school shooting reminds America what vets already know: civilian gun culture is a dysfunctional mess
He encourages people not to listen to the NRA or other pro-gun groups. Instead, he wants people to look to vets. I would be willing to bet that most vets do not agree with Diamond. So, what he really means is that he wants people to listen to him.

He starts by pointing out that most soldiers are unarmed. He uses this fact to push that most people should be unarmed. He says that only MPs are armed on base. He points out that professional soldiers get extensive training with firearms. He suggests that civilians should be required to get the same amount of training as the military. Also, he says that the military tracks their ammunition and firearms. I track my guns as well. Most gun owners do.
His great solutions are to impose military-style regulations on civilian populations. Without saying as much, that would mean a gun confiscation for everyone besides the police. He finishes the article by reminding people that he fought for our country in Desert Storm (even though he didn’t see combat) so we should listen to him.
The Atlantic runs the headline, “It’s the Guns.” Right away you know where this story is going.
What “The Atlantic” does is throws various misleading stats from anti-gun groups at the reader in hopes that they don’t actually look into them. Anytime you see statistics you have to take them with a grain of salt.
I once had a professor who told that class that you can use statistics to prove anything you want. He took the same study and framed the stats in two different ways. The results were polar opposites. This “statical jiu-jitsu” is what David Frum of The Atlantic is doing.
The United States is a big country. We have over 300 million people. That is a hell of a lot more people than most countries in Europe. This fact alone means that you can’t use raw numbers. You have to use per capita numbers. According to the Crime Research Prevention Center, you are 27% more likely to be killed in a mass shooting in the EU than in the US, but that doesn’t fit Frum’s narrative.
He then goes on to attack gun owners. He calls us irresponsible. He points out that most gun owners don’t feel the need to inform visitors that there are guns in the house. “Hey come in! By the way, I have an AR15 and a Glock in a safe downstairs.”
Then there is an article in “Deadline” attacking movie posters. The author, Michael Cieply, thinks that Han Solo holding a blaster on a Star Wars poster is damaging to our kids. Yes, a blaster from Star Wars could be making our kids the next mass shooter.

He claims Chewbacca has the space equivalent of an assault rifle. He goes after other movies posters as well. For example, the hilarious poster from Deadpool 2″. That poster shows a cartoon Deadpool riding a unicorn with a gun.
 
Adam Swiderski, of Syfy, writes that he is very anti-censorship, but he thinks that the movie industry should look at their movies and tone down the guns. Yes, in one breath he says he is anti-censorship then in the next asserts that the entertainment industry should censor itself.
The most ridiculous article I ran across was one from Jill Lawrence of “The USA Today.”
The headline reads, “Would the Founders want our kids to die in school shootings like Santa Fe? I doubt it.
She says that the Founding Fathers were unbound by the past and wouldn’t let something like that pesky Second Amendment get in their way. She claims since a lot of the signers of the Constitution had children that died that they would support gun control. Later she claims that The Second Amendment was put in place to control slaves.

“Does anyone think they would expect us to live by a 230-year-old document,” She asks referring to the Constitution.

My response would be an astounding “Yes!”
I do believe the Constitution should bind us. That 230-year-old document is the bedrock of our country. It stops people like Jill Lawrence from trampling on our rights. If the founding fathers were alive today, they wouldn’t change a damn thing in that Masterpiece.


About John CrumpJohn Crump
John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%’ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on the history of the patriot movement and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss or at www.crumpy.com.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

The Enemy of the People

https://youtu.be/a76JMYH6KvQ

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Why am I NOt surprised by this?

Ron Paul: Republicans, Democrats Teaming Up for Federal Gun Confiscation Bill

A source inside the US Senate has reported that Republicans and Democrats are teaming up and using the recent tragedy in Texas as the impetus to push through a massive federal gun control bill.

gun
In an email Tuesday night, former Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul released an ominous statement claiming that a source they have in the Senate revealed Democrats are teaming up with Republicans to push through a massive gun control bill.

According to their source, as Paul explained, “Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are teaming up with Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to ram through one of the worst nationwide gun confiscation schemes ever devised.”

The gun confiscation bill, according to Paul, is designed to disarm Americans without any due process. The senators are using the recent tragic shooting in Texas as the impetus behind the law—in spite of the fact that this law would not have prevented the shooting at all.
As the Free Thought Project has previously reported, some states have already begun implementing laws like this one. Using mass shootings as a their ammunition, states have enacted “Red Flag” or “Risk Protection” laws which allow police to confiscate a person’s weapon before they are ever given a chance to defend themselves.
In both of the gun confiscation cases reported by TFTP, neither of the two men were suspected of committing a crime, nor had they committed a crime.
Under the fifth and fourteenth amendments, due process clauses are in place to act as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law. What’s more, neither of the men were granted their sixth amendment rights to be confronted with the witnesses against them. In both cases, simple orders—under new laws—were issued, arguably arbitrarily, which stripped these two men of their property.
In spite of what officials and the media claim, when a person is stripped of their constitutional rights, albeit temporarily, without being given the chance to make their own case based on what can be entirely arbitrary accusations, this is the removal of due process.
As Ron Paul explains, this removal of due process could soon be a federal law.

Under so-called “Red Flag” or “Risk Protection” Orders, anti-gun family members, neighbors, or associates could have your guns taken away based on mere accusations without any real due process or trial.
In secret court proceedings, where only your accuser is present, judges could determine that you pose a “significant danger” to someone, including yourself.
Imagine your surprise when a heavily armed SWAT Team arrives to seize your lawfully owned firearms.
It would then cost you tens of thousands of dollars in court costs and weeks or even months to try and convince the court they made a mistake.

To be clear, no one here is advocating for people determined to be mentally unfit to be able to possess firearms. However, they need to be determined to be mentally unfit before they lose their rights.

To those who may be in favor of such laws, consider the following: There is no way to stop an estranged spouse from calling police repeatedly and telling them their ex is threatening to cause harm to others. While the man in Florida had his guns taken for being psychologically unfit, the man in Seattle simply open-carried a pistol and looked out of windows and his guns were taken because his neighbors thought it was strange.
Anyone, any time, now has the ability to claim someone else is a threat and have police take their guns. One does not need to delve into the multiple ‘what if’ scenarios to see what sort of ominous implications arise from such a practice. What’s more, police in some states now have the power to deem you a threat at any time and legally disarm you—due process be damned.
This is the exact scenario that Donald Trump advocated for in February.

NBC News

@NBCNews

WATCH: President Trump: “I like taking the guns early … Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

As Ron Paul explains, this is entirely unconstitutional.

The words of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are so easy to grasp:
“. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There were no asterisks and no footnotes. There are no sentences that follow which start with the words “unless” or “however.” The right to defend your life and property shall not be infringed by the government.
Period.

Paul’s Campaign for Liberty has set up the Defend the Second Amendment Directive where citizens can sign a petition to demand their Senator not pass this blow to freedom and self-defense. You can sign it here.
Please share this article to let your friends and family that saying, “they are coming for our guns,” is not a conspiracy theory.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Well I thought it was funny!

Poor Max, Folks are always picking on her!

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

The Current State of Freedom today in this here parts

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Darwin would of approved of this! War

He is still dead and good riddance says I!

Hitler definitely died in 1945, according to new study of his teeth

Image result for Dead Hitler
Hitler committed suicide in 1945 as Soviet troops captured Berlin 

By  
French researchers claim to have put an end to conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Adolf Hitler, after a study of his teeth proved he definitely died after taking cyanide and shooting himself in the head in Berlin in 1945.
The researchers reached their conclusion after they were given rare access to fragments of Hitler’s teeth which have been held in Moscow since the end of World War II.

“The teeth are authentic, there is no possible doubt. Our study proves that Hitler died in 1945,” said professor Philippe Charlier.

“We can stop all the conspiracy theories about Hitler. He did not flee to Argentina in a submarine, he is not in a hidden base in Antarctica or on the dark side of the moon,” he told AFP news agency.
The teeth were put on display in 2000 in Moscow as part of an exhibition to mark the 55th anniversary of the end of the war.
They were back in the news again last month when the memoirs of a Russian interpreter who worked in Berlin in 1945 were published in English for the first time.
She recounted how she had been tasked with proving Hitler’s death by tracking down his dental records in the ruined German capital and seeing if they matched a set of teeth she had been entrusted with – which they did.
In March and July 2017, Russia’s FSB secret service and the Russian state archives authorised a team of French researchers to examine Hitler’s bones for the first time since 1946, said Professor Charlier, who was one of the scientists chosen.
They were able to look at a skull fragment presented as being from the Fuhrer, which showed a hole on the left side which was in all probability caused by the passage of a bullet.
The scientists were not authorised to take samples from this fragment, they noted in their study published on Friday in the scientific magazine European Journal of Internal Medicine.
The skull fragment’s morphology was “totally comparable” to radiographies of Hitler’s skull taken a year before his death, the research found.
The analysis of the Nazi leader’s bad teeth and numerous dentures found white tartar deposits and no traces of meat fibre – the dictator was vegetarian.
The examination of the teeth did not find any traces of powder, which indicates there was not a revolver shot to the mouth, more likely the neck or the forehead.
Equally, bluish deposits seen on his false teeth could indicate a “chemical reaction between the cyanide and the metal of the dentures,” the researcher said.
If this study confirms the generally accepted view that Hitler died on the 30 April, 1945, in his Berlin bunker with his companion Eva Braun as the Soviets were capturing the city, it also sheds new light on the exact causes of death, said Mr Charlier.
“We didn’t know if he had used an ampule of cyanide to kill himself or whether it was a bullet in the head. It’s in all probability both,” he said.
Charlier, a specialist in medical and legal anthropology, was also involved in the analysis of the mummified heart of Richard the Lionheart.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

US versus UK Results

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Campaign launched for tougher gun laws in Switzerland

Campaign launched for tougher gun laws in Switzerland
Stock photo: George Frey, Getty Images North America/AFP
A new platform composed of left-wing politicians, police officers and psychiatrists is pushing for Switzerland to follow the European Union in tightening controls on guns.
Representatives of the Social Democratic Party (SP), the Swiss police officers association VSPB/FSFP and the Swiss federation of psychiatrists and psychotherapists FMPP joined forces on Thursday ahead of a debate on the issue in parliament, the Tribune de Genèvereported.
The EU parliament approved a revised gun law last year designed to close security loopholes and introduce tighter controls on blank-firing and inadequately deactivated weapons like those used in the Paris terror attacks.
On March 2nd the Federal Council issued a message on a “pragmatic implementation” of the EU legislation in Switzerland in response to the terror attacks in Europe.
It said the focus was on limiting access to semi-automatic weapons with a large magazine capacity and improving the exchange of information in the Schengen area that includes Switzerland.
The government’s message will now be debated by the two chambers of parliament.
While supporters of gun ownership in Switzerland oppose the proposed tighter legislation and have threatened to call a referendum, the new platform backs even stronger controls on guns.
In particular it wants to limit access to fire arms in order to reduce their use in domestic crimes where the victims are most often women.
Max Hoffman of the police officers association told news website Watson police were campaigning for the EU legislation to be adopted in Switzerland as “violence is becoming ever more brutal” in the country.
Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! California

The US Supreme Court just said F.U. to California Gun owners

California Cities Are Free to Regulate Gun Stores Out of Existence

More Second Amendment setbacks in the Golden State when the Supreme Court declines to take a case about city zoning

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sent a clear message to millions of gun owners in California: You’re living in a Second Amendment-free zone.
In an order on Monday, without explanation or comment, the Court rejected a civil rights lawsuit brought by the Calguns Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation. Those groups had hoped the justices would rule that the Second Amendment continues to apply even in the progressive enclaves of the left coast—and that law-abiding California residents possess the right to buy and sell firearms.
Instead, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, a decision that underscores its willingness to let California legislators and judges evade the Second Amendment within the borders of the state.

“There are no significant Second Amendment obstacles to local and state gun control at this point,” said Don Kilmer, an attorney in San Jose, California, who is representing the gun rights groups. Also representing them is Alan Gura, who has taken two Second Amendment cases to the Supreme Court before.
Their lawsuit challenges a decision by Alameda, a California county that includes Oakland and other east bay cities, to enact a zoning law so onerous it effectively bans gun stores. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sided with Alameda in 2017, saying that “no historical authority suggests that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to sell a firearm.”
At least Monday’s decision serves one useful purpose: It exposes the federal judiciary’s willingness to elevate some constitutional rights over others.
If a city enacted zoning laws that effectively outlawed abortion clinics, and a federal appeals court had permitted it, the Supreme Court would have stepped in a heartbeat later. Under precedents going back to Maher v. Roe (1977), any law representing “direct state interference” with abortion is evaluated using strict scrutiny, the most exacting standard of legal review. Few such laws survive. (The 9th Circuit did not apply strict scrutiny to Alameda’s law.)
In today’s California, even adult movie theaters enjoy greater legal protections than gun stores. In a 1986 decision, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment allows municipalities to restrict such theaters (apparently they were a thing before the Internet) only if zoning laws provide a “reasonable opportunity to open and operate an adult theater within the city.”
The current lawsuit arose when three entrepreneurs, John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaza, formed a partnership called Valley Guns and Ammo and started to look for potential locations in Alameda County. They planned to open a specialty shop that, in addition to selling firearms and ammunition, would have been the only store in the area to offer firearm safety training and certification, gunsmithing and repairs, and consignment and appraisal services.
Finding a location was difficult. An Alameda County zoning ordinance singles out gun stores by imposing extraordinarily strict rules. The location must be 500 feet away from any residentially zoned area, from any elementary, middle, or high school, from any preschool or day care center, from any other firearm retailer, and from any liquor stores, bars, or restaurants where liquor is served.
Alameda’s true motive, of course, was to outlaw gun stores. But the three men managed to find a location that complied—it was over 500 feet from the store to the front door of the nearest home—and Alameda’s zoning board approved the application. After complaints from anti-gun activists, however, the county changed its policy to require a distance of 500 feet from the store to the nearest area that was zoned for residential use. That made the distance from the store to the nearest home 446 feet, which the county said was not far enough.
The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees sued on behalf of the three entrepreneurs, but the outcome before the 9th Circuit was predetermined. This is one circuit that has never seen a Second Amendment violation and, unless President Donald Trump fills the current vacancies with reasonable picks, likely never will.
In theory, after the Supreme Court’s Heller decision in 2008, the Second Amendment right to self-defense joined the pantheon of constitutional rights including the right to worship, the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and the right to speak freely. After the court’s followup McDonalddecision in 2010, it was supposed to be another fundamental right for all Americans to enjoy.
Alas, the Bill of Rights is not self-enforcing; our judiciary is entrusted with upholding and defending it. But the unfortunate reality today is that many federal judges, including a majority of the 9th Circuit, have creatively defined away Americans’ right to self defense. And a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court have shown themselves, repeatedly, to be unwilling to do anything about it.
“If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent from his colleagues’ decision not to intervene after the 9th Circuit upheld another California anti-gun measure in February. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court… The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan.” (Justice Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in a separate dissent last year that made a similar point.)
Kilmer, the San Jose attorney representing the gun rights groups against Alameda, says: “The problem with the 9th Circuit’s activism, and the refusal of the Supreme Court to cabin in their abuses, is that the California legislature and local municipalities will feel free to do whatever they want.”
Exactly so: the Second Amendment has been effectively repealed inside California. I suspect that California’s millions of gun owners, who are subject to intrusive new registration requirements starting in July, are beginning to wonder: If federal judges routinely ignore the law, why can’t I?

Photo Credit: Benkrut/Dreamstime.com