Thread: The "New" Gun Control ...

Wait Until You See What this Cop Does to Girls Who Open Carry
May 28, 2014 By Jennifer Burke

This is absolutely unbelievable. A group of girls innocently eating sandwiches at a Subway located inside a Walmart in Missouri found themselves at the center of police officer harassment. Their crime was no crime at all. They were legally following the Missouri Open Carry laws with valid gun permits.

Apparently, some patrons were uncomfortable seeing the girls’ guns. So, police were called. Had this been handled any differently, it would not be as big of a deal. But, the police showed up with semi-automatic weapons, illegally detained the girls, and treated them with an overt abuse of power. The officer’s ignorance of the Second Amendment and his own state’s gun laws is ridiculous!

When one girl showed him her gun permit, he demanded to see her identification instead. A government issued passport was also not a sufficient form of identification as he asks another girl if she has any other form of ID. He demanded to see the identification of every single girl in the group, even those who were not carrying weapons.

Not only did he illegally detain this innocent group of young girls, but he also became irate when he realized he was being filmed. This officer’s abuse of power continues when he forces a friend of the group who showed up at the Subway to produce ID as well.

At no point could the officer state why the girls were being detained, even when asked on numerous occasions. When asked if they had broken any law, he responded, “I don’t know. That’s what I’m trying to determine.”

So, in Missouri, an officer’s ignorance of the law and obvious power trip leads to law-abiding Americans simply exercising their constitutional rights to be treated like common criminals.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=qGAN8k7YpP8

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/28/wait-...ho-open-carry/

Sharing in light of the earlier discussion. The UK has a 100% gun ban now and they're trying to ban knives, Australia's is close to 100%, and Canada is on that path. All have higher violent crime rates than the US. And Switzerland, where every person over the age of 21 is required to own at least one gun (in the assault category) has the lowest violent crime rate in the entire world.



Comparing international trends in recorded violent crime

Crime facts info no. 115

ISSN 1445-7288
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, January 2006
Download factsheet (pdf 0.14 MB)

The way in which crime is recorded varies across jurisdictions and over time, so comparing crime rates between countries (and, sometimes, within a country) is not necessarily an accurate indicator of differences in actual levels of crime in those countries. Similarly, crime rate trend data in a single jurisdiction are not necessarily reflective of trends in actual levels of crime. Changes in rates of recorded crime may be the result of changes in the way crime data are collected, or changes in the proportion of victims reporting criminal offences to police. The figure below shows a dramatic increase in recorded violent crime in England and Wales between 1998 and the present. Rather than indicating a sharp rise in actual violence, however, this increase is largely the direct result of major changes to the way crime data are recorded in the England and Wales. First in 1998 and then again in 2002, amendments were introduced to include a broader range of offences, to promote greater consistency, and to take a more victim-led approach where alleged offences were recorded as well as evidence-based ones. The changes affected recorded violent crimes more than property or other crimes. Incremental changes over time in recording procedures in the United States, Canada and Australia may also have influenced recorded violent crime trend data in these countries.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/c...20/cfi115.html

Cold Dead Hands



More terribly inconvenient statistics for the anti-gun groups. Either that, or they don't want you to worry about the people who die from these other causes. As always, don't believe me, but read the article from CNN citing the sources. While this was originally published 2 years ago, nothing stastistically significantly changed for CY 2013.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/us/us-mass-killings/

"Fox suggests that any sense that mass killings are on an upward spiral has more to do with the vagaries of human memory than actual facts." Yes, and, as noted last night, it's the President leading this anti-intellectual approach.

Also, a good reason.com article: http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/ar...oming-the-norm Note that the number of violent deaths in these numbers include suicide, if you remove those, the numbers drop even further.

Hillary Clinton – You Are Not Allowed to Support Gun Rights; If You Do, You’re a Terrorist
June 18, 2014 By Jennifer Burke

When a person is sworn into the Office of the Presidency, they take an oath of office. With their hand rested on a bible, the individual says these words.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Obama’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has aspirations of being in the White House again. But this time, she does not want to be a First Lady having to deal with her philandering husband’s abuse of the presidency to fulfill his sexual desires. Hillary Clinton wants to be president. Although she has not officially declared her candidacy, her actions and posturing points to that distinct possibility.

Hillary, like the rest of America, has already witnessed a president, her fellow Saul Alinskyite, Progressive Democrat Barack Obama, who tramples over the Constitution on a daily basis. In fact, Obama has even gone so far as to say that the Constitution is a flawed document that simply gets in his way. So, perhaps that is why she was so bold as to attack not just gun rights during a recent CNN Town Hall, but to also attack those people who stand up for the Second Amendment as terrorists. (Watch Video At Source Link )

During this town hall, a questioner asks Hillary if she thinks that reinstating the assault weapons ban and banning high capacity magazines would help in regards to school shootings. Before the woman can finish asking her question, Hillary answers, “Yes. Yes, I do.”

Using that as a moment to subliminally tout her book, Hillary added, “We make ‘hard choices’ and we balance competing values all the time.” She expressed her disappointment in Congress not passing universal background checks after Sandy Hook. The questioner then chimes in with the bogus and already debunked Everytown for Gun Safety statistic saying, ’Seventy-four more’. No one, not Clinton nor the CNN host, corrected the woman on the false statistic, even though CNN itself debunked the claim nearly one week ago presenting the fact that the actual number by their analysis is 15, not 74. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/us/sch...gs-cnn-number/

“I don’t think any parent, any person, should have to fear about their child going to school or going to college because someone, for whatever reasons — psychological, emotional, political, ideological, whatever it means — could possibly enter that school property with an automatic weapon and murder innocent children, students, teachers.”

Then, she who wants to be president, after accusing those who hold differing political views of desiring to demonstrate those views through a school shooting, continues by attacking those people who believe in, support, and defend the Second Amendment, of being terrorists and ‘in the minority’.

“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

So, she who wants to be president not only wants to selectively apply the Second Amendment, she says those who support it are not even allowed to hold that viewpoint because doing so makes them terrorists.

Dan Cannon, founder and editor of GunsSavesLives.net, addresses Clinton’s persistent use of the term “automatic weapons” during her response. Cannon calls Clinton out on her inaccurate reference. http://gunssavelives.net/anti-gun-po...uto-rifle-ban/

We assume she means semi-automatic weapons since automatic weapons are very strictly controlled as well as incredibly expensive. Legally owned automatic weapons have been used in 2 documented instances of crime over the last 75 years.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/18/video...e-a-terrorist/

Gun Owners of America President:
Hillary is Echoing the Words of King George III

June 24, 2014 By TPNN

Make no mistake, the left has not given up on their relentless assault on the Second Amendment; they are simply waiting for the next tragedy to advance their gruesome agenda.

On Tuesday, TPNN’s Tim Constantine spoke with Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America about the recent comments from presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton who regarded those who oppose anti-gun rights measures as terrorists. “We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said last week referring to those who reject anti-gun rights measures pushed by Democrats.

Pratt remarked that Clinton’s comments are modern-day echoes of the words of King George III, the British monarch against whom Americans rebelled. “Mrs. Clinton’s remarks are interesting in a number of ways, one of which is that she is echoing in the 21st century, jargon and the very words of King George.”

Pratt noted that those who preached against George’s tyranny were often vilified as terrorists, as evil, as Satan worshippers, etc.

Noting that those who fought against King George came to embrace their patriot labels, Pratt concluded that the Tea Party has done similarly.

Clip at source http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/24/gun-o...ng-george-iii/

Remember when NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and his progressive peeps were all happy when he ended the "Stop and Frisk" program?
Guess what happened... http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/nyc-st...soars-related/

Gun Confiscation Begins in New York!

It is with a heavy heart that I inform you that the war over the Second Amendment has come to a boil in New York State.

For weeks, we have been receiving rumors that New York State Police had begun confiscating firearms from citizens. Under the unconstitutional “SAFE Act,” the State of New York has unprecedented authority to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens. Because all citizens are forced to register their firearms with the State, that gives New York the ability to target gun owners for confiscation!

The adage goes that registration leads to confiscation, and New York is proving that saying to be absolutely true. Because New York State has a list of all gun owners, the powers-that-be are able to comb through files until they discover a reason for confiscation. Or, sometimes the “reason” falls right into their lap.

We have learned from George Curbelo, the lead coordinator of the pro-Constitution group New York Revolution, that New York State Police have begun confiscation efforts. As freedom loving patriots, we must stand with our brothers and sisters in New York and DEMAND that Congress put an end to New York’s unconstitutional gun confiscation program!

In one confiscation case, there was a married couple going through a rough patch in their relationship. The wife sought out marriage counseling to try to figure out how to fix her marriage. New York’s SAFE Act completely eliminates individuals’ HIPAA protections. What goes on between NY residents and their doctors is no longer confidential. In fact, doctors and therapists actually have an incentive to report patients to the police for their guns to be confiscated.

Well, according to Sheriff Thomas E. Mills of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department, the therapist reported this woman (who shall remain nameless out of courtesy) to the local police for firearms confiscation. When the Sheriff’s Department honored its oath and refused to carry out the unlawful seizure of the family’s weapons, the case was turned over to the State Police.

The State Police went to this couple’s home and seized the family’s weapons, all because the SAFE Act allowed them to.

We learned of another incident from a post on NewYorkFirearms.com. A Nassau County man answered his front door to see a swarm of cops. He was told that the police were there to check his firearm’s serial numbers. Under New York law, the police have the authority to verify that the serial numbers registered with the State are correct. That is one of the conditions of owning a firearm. However, in this particular incident, Police entered the home without a warrant.

It was only after the safe was opened that the police informed the homeowner that this wasn’t a routine inspection… it was a confiscation order. After registering his firearms with the state, the police realized that the man had been found guilty of a misdemeanor charge FIFTEEN years ago. Not only was it a misdemeanor, but it might as well have been a lifetime ago!

Still, that didn’t stop police from taking all of his firearms without ever so much as serving a warrant.

These two stories are in their infancy, however what is 100% VERIFIABLE is the fact that in every instance in modern history, firearm registration leads to confiscation!

The gun grabbers tell you that they aren’t interested in taking your guns and I am telling you that is a complete lie. They are pushing “Universal Background Checks” because that is essentially a backdoor way to register firearms. If there wasn't some type of registration component to these background checks, there would be no way to prove that background checks were ever performed!

Then, once your guns are registered with the state, the gun control advocates will increase the number of disqualifiers for firearm ownership. With your firearm serial numbers recorded, the gun grabbers will pass new laws that disqualify you from gun ownership.

We see that today in cases of non-violent, verbal spousal arguments. Gun control organizations want to label marital shouting matches as domestic violence incidents worthy of firearm confiscation. Based on the evidence that is out there, firearms confiscation seems to have begun in New York State. The day we knew was coming has finally arrived. Registration has begun to lead to confiscation. We MUST do everything in our power to stop these infringements in New York, but we also need to make sure that Harry Reid and the Democrats don’t nationalize this horrific law as they intend to!

The Second Amendment exists to protect all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. But when it comes to protecting the Second Amendment, that responsibility falls to us. It is our job to ensure that the gun grabbers don’t get their way and that firearm ownership continues as a tradition for years to come.

If confiscation truly has begun in New York, which seems to be the case, then YOU must do everything in your power to put a stop to it! The Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers must be protected. But additionally, it is your responsibility to ensure that a gun control bill is not put up for a vote in Congress. And the only way to ensure that is to put your Representatives and Senators on notice that a vote for gun control is a political death sentence!

The time has come for us to answer the call and stand up against the gun grabbers in New York, and around the country, who have made it their life goal to disarm Americans!

http://conservative-daily.com/2014/0...s-in-new-york/

Trust me - this would not go over well in South Louisiana...

Just Days After TARGET Starts Its ‘No Gun’ Policy, THIS Happens…

By Gina Cassini on July 11, 2014

Within three days of a new policy asking customers not to bring their guns to Target stores, reports have surfaced of armed attacks on customers at those stores.





Three Target shoppers at three different stores in Georgia alone have been robbed by armed thugs since the discount retailer announced on July 2, in a letter from its CEO, that customers should leave their guns at home when they visit Target.

This news follows an unfortunate but rather obvious pattern of establishments whose businesses or customers have been targeted after putting anti-gun policies in place — and comes on the same day that a major study revealed that concealed-carry permits dramatically decrease violent crime.

In May, I reported on a North Carolina restaurant which posted a prominent “No Guns Allowed” sign and was promptly robbed by armed gunmen the very next week. http://toprightnews.com/?p=3247 And 3 Jack-in-the-Box locations suffered robberies and a shooting within 2 weeks of their new corporate policy “requesting” no guns on site, similar to the Target policy. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...e-Guns-At-Home

Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said it was not a ban on guns, just a “request” that the Minneapolis-based retailer hoped its customers would honor.

Whether or not that was their intent, as with Jack-in-the-Box, the outcome was the same, scary result. As WND reported that in just 3 days after Target’s new “no gun” policy: http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/armed-rob...tims-at-target



A man was robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot of a Target in Gainesville, Georgia….

On July 5, a woman in the Edgewood area of Atlanta had just parked her Mercedes Benz in a Target parking garage and exited her vehicle when she was approached by a black man who punched her in the head, knocking her to the ground. He took her purse and car keys, then warned her to “stay on the ground or I will f—ing kill you,” according to police reports. He then put her car in reverse and would have run her over if she hadn’t rolled out of the way, she told police. She said she obeyed his commands, according to Decaturish.com.

The Gainesville Police Department arrested three men on charges of robbing a man of his cash at gunpoint in the parking lot of the Target on Shallowford Road in the city about 50 miles northeast of Atlanta.

It’s unclear if thieves are catching on and targeting businesses that discourage law abiding gun owners to carry firearms, but it would not be surprising given the amount of media coverage these corporate decisions are getting.

One would hope that Target, and other American businesses pressured by the Mike Blomberg-funded pressure group Moms Demand Action, would realize that there is only one group of people who never honor their no-guns policies: the criminals.

Meanwhile, yesterday a major study showed that a dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09...tcmp=obnetwork

When will these corporations ever learn?

http://toprightnews.com/?p=4395

Obama's next step - create an environment of such civil strife and danger we will beg him to keep is safe with his "civilian security force." In other words, we may soon have a police state unless truly well intentioned liberals wake the hell up.

http://youtu.be/_fO-usAlqak

http://youtu.be/_fO-usAlqak

MSNBC.com Reader Poll: 88 Percent Agree 'People Should Be Allowed to Carry Guns in Public'
By Ken Shepherd | August 6, 2014

It's not scientific by any means, and there is the possibility that an influx of non-regular MSNBC.com readers have contributed to this result, but all the same, a new reader-reaction poll on MSNBC.com has a surprisingly overwhelming pro-gun rights response.

In a poll at the bottom of Michele Richinick's story, "A children’s book to teach kids about gun rights," MSNBC.com asks "Do you think people should be allowed to carry guns in public?" Eighty-eight percent of respondents selected the answer, "Yes! The Second Amendment guarantees it." and an additional 4 percent staked out a middle-ground position, "Only for self defense." Only 8 percent answered "No, it's too dangerous."



This is not the first time an MSNBC.com reader poll has had a surprising, non-liberal result. Back in June I noted how "Nearly 2/3rds of MSNBC.com Readers Think Bergdahl-Taliban Prisoner Swap Was a Bad Deal." http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...soner-swap-was


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...#ixzz39jiso7JM



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...#ixzz39jiqFRWg


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-she...#ixzz39jieyjbj

Judge Rules AR15s Not Protected by 2nd Amendment!

This one is a real game changer… A Federal Judge has just ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect AR-15s and other Semi-Automatic Firearms!

Following the Sandy Hook shooting, the State of Maryland passed one of the toughest gun control laws in the country. The law banned all known AR-15 and AK-47 rifles, in addition to prohibiting civilian ownership of any weapons sharing characteristics with them. Since then, many other liberal states have followed suit, arguing that there is no Constitutional right to own an “assault weapon.”

They are correct, in a way… If you illegally assault someone with a deadly weapon, you lose the right to own that weapon. But to suggest that millions of Americans own so-called “assault weapons” is to accuse these people of committing a crime.

In reality, AR-15 rifles are used for home defense, target shooting, hunting, and a plethora of other legal purposes. Because law-abiding gun owners own these firearms for lawful purposes, they should be protected under the Second Amendment.

According to the Supreme Court in the case Heller v. District of Columbia, the Second Amendment protects all firearms used for lawful purposes that are “in common use at the time.” However, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake has ruled exactly the opposite: that the AR-15 is too “unusual and dangerous” and is therefore not covered under the 2nd Amendment!

“Upon review of all the parties’ evidence,” she writes,” the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.”

This is just a glimpse of her 47-page opinion. http://www.scribd.com/doc/236628112/...urt-gun-ruling

First of all, this woman is paid to uphold the constitution, not to bestow her ‘opinion’ on us. I don’t care if she was appointed by Bill Clinton and has drank the gun control Kool-Aid… Her personal beliefs shouldn’t matter!

This is what is so wrong with this country! Every American has the individual right to own firearms for defense of life, property, and country, but there are forces at work trying to take away that right! The gun control movement knows it cannot enact an assault weapons ban legally, so they are trying to push it through the backdoor!

The AR-15 isn’t the boogey man of the firearm world. Americans have lawfully owned AR-15 rifles since they were introduced on the civilian market in 1963. And since then, there have literally been MILLIONS of these guns bought by American civilians. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it is unconstitutional to ban any firearm that is “in common use at the time.”

Anyone who went to buy an AR-15 in the year(s) following the Sandy Hook shooting knows how hard they were to find! Gun stores literally couldn’t keep them on the shelves and the manufactures couldn’t keep up with demand. To suggest that the most popular firearm in America (statistically) is “uncommon” is completely ignorant!

The AR-15 isn’t a machine gun and it isn’t a gun designed for military use. It may look like its M-16 and M-4 military counterparts, but they are not synonymous with one another!

The fact that a Federal Judge thinks she has the power to pick and choose what firearms are protected under the Second Amendment is LUDICROUS!

This is what we are up against. Just weeks ago, a judge in Colorado determined the same thing: that the AR-15 was a clone of a military weapon and therefore not a protected firearm.

What the hell are these activist judges smoking?

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

Now before any liberal readers start trying to argue that firearm ownership is restricted to militia members… there’s something you should know. According to the United States Code (10 U.S. Code § 311), the unorganized militia is comprised of all able-bodied Americans, and especially those ages 17-45.

I am a member of the militia! You are a member of the militia! And it was the founders’ vision to have an armed citizenry that could, if necessary, be called into service to defend this great country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The militia won the American Revolution! If it wasn’t for the armed citizenry, the United States would still be a British colony.

Gun grabbers are always quick to assert that the Second Amendment only protects muskets and not scary looking AR-15 rifles. Well, quite frankly, this argument is cr==. There, I said it! To suggest that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets would also mean that the 1st Amendment would only apply to the spoken word and anything written with a quill and ink! To suggest this would also mean that the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures wouldn’t apply to the NSA and its domestic spy programs! Just because the Founding Fathers didn’t know about a certain technology doesn’t mean it isn’t protected within the Bill of Rights.

Luckily, the Supreme Court has already ruled in Reno v. ACLU (1997) that the first amendment, like all other amendments, applies just as much to modern communications as it does to prose written with a quill and ink! There is nothing uncommon and particularly dangerous about a semi-automatic rifle, but these activist judges continue to lie their way into enacting assault weapons bans!

They know that the American people will not let Congress infringe on the Second Amendment, so these Liberal Judges are taking it into their own hands.

Whenever I talk to gun owners, they always feel assured that the courts will side on behalf of the people and put an end to these unconstitutional gun laws. Yet, we are seeing exactly the opposite! We are witnessing an entire class of activist judges attempting to reinterpret the Constitution to justify disarming millions of Americans!

The Second Amendment doesn’t give me a right to keep and bear arms; it merely recognizes a pre-existing human right that government “shall not infringe” upon! The government does not give us this right, nor can they take it away!

This judge believes that no one needs an AR-15… Many in Congress believe that Americans don’t need AR-15s… Well, I have news for them: it’s called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs! Our Second Amendment rights are under attack. There is a concerted effort to redefine our rights and disarm millions of Americans in the process. If this ruling stands, it would legalize the disarmament and confiscation of millions of Americans’ guns!

It really is simple… Our Representatives and Senators believe that it is enough to just not join the gun control movement. They believe that they can fly under the radar without suffering the electorate’s wrath. That has to change! It isn’t enough to just stand on the sidelines, anymore. If our legislators won’t do everything in their power to fight against gun control, then there is no difference between them and those who want to disarm the American people!

http://conservative-daily.com/2014/0...2nd-amendment/