Page 31 of 34 First ... 112728293031323334 Last
  1. #331
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    4 shootings over Christmas week liberals want YOU to IGNORE

    Written by The Analytical Economist on December 28, 2015

    The nature of the media is to report on improbable events. Plane crashes will get media attention because of their rarity – but car crashes will get none, as that alone could literally fill an entire 24/7 news cycle. However due to selective reporting, about 25% of the population has some kind of fear of flying, despite the fact that they’re over 100 times more likely to be killed in a car accident.

    Reporting on firearms is no different. Mass shootings garner immense attention – but they’re the exception to the rule. The truth is, guns are used in self-defense all the time – the mainstream media just isn’t one to report on it.

    Just a few such cases occurred in the past week. As the Daily Caller reported: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/27/th...istmas-season/

    The Christmas season was a bad time to be a criminal near a person with a weapon.

    There were a total of four incidents involving a person using a gun to stop a crime or other life-threatening incident between December 22 and December 26, according to a list compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center.
    Keep in mind that these are only the reported incidents –and that merely brandishing a firearm is all that’s necessary in most cases of self-defense. In fewer than 8% of cases does the gun owner actually wound or kill their attacker.
    December 22:

    Brandon Johnson was shot and killed after attempting to rob two men looking to buy a vehicle in Gary, Indiana during a Craigslist scam. Johnson’s girlfriend was also shot in the thigh but is expected to survive, according to the Washington Times. The shooter, who is from Illinois, told police that when he arrived to make the Craigslist purchase Johnson instead pulled a gun resulting in the shooter pulling out his own weapon to defend his life.

    December 23:

    A criminal attempted to hold up Captain Max Seafood in Miramar, Florida. Except the robber didn’t get very far into his plan because an employee pulled out a gun and killed the suspect, according to NBC Miami.

    December 24:

    Bill Kessler shot and killed a large dog that was attacking his beagle in Detroit, Michigan.

    “Before he got to me I got my pepper spray out and sprayed him but that didn’t stop him. After the pepper spray the dog started attacking mine, I tried kicking it, but it was so aggressive I took out my gun and shot it,” Kessler told Freep.

    According to police, a warrant will likely be issued for the owner of the dead dog for the charge of “dog at large,” which is a misdemeanor.

    December 26:

    Antonio Bagley shot and killed Jerrell Walker after Walker attempted to rob him in Warner Robins, Georgia. Bagley told police that the attempted robbery took place late on Christmas night, and resulted in him firing the fatal shot to Walker’s torso.
    There aren’t mere anecdotes that don’t represent the bigger picture. Estimates vary on the extent of self-defensive gun usage, but all are favorable. For instance, Gallup found over 1.6 million self-defensive gun uses each year – the LA Times 3.8 million, and a 1995 study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 2.5 million.

    The case for gun rights has always been strong, but those who control the narrative would rather have you think otherwise.

    http://www.allenbwest.com/2015/12/4-...ant-to-ignore/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement The "New" Gun Control ...
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #332
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Obama may act to expand background checks on gun sales
    11 hrs ago

    U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to announce executive action expanding background checks on gun sales, media outlets reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with White House proposals and planning.

    The changes, which could come as soon as next week, would include requiring more small-scale gun sellers to be licensed and to conduct background check whenever selling a weapon, Politico reported.

    Additional measures would impose tighter rules for reporting guns that get lost or stolen on their way to a buyer, the political news website said.

    Planning for the action is not complete and the announcement could be delayed, CNN reported.

    Obama is currently on vacation with his family in Hawaii.
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oba...d=ansmsnnews11
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  4. #333
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    The White House and Barack Obama do not have the skill or wisdom to prevent practiced and established terrorist networks from supplying lone-wolf attackers with weapons. The only thing that strict gun control can ensure is the submission of private US citizens to whatever violence these extremists wish to visit on them.



    The Obama administration is using the San Bernardino shooting to push for more gun control laws.


    Reporter Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest: “Does the President really think that common sense gun laws would deter terrorists now that he has admitted that these two may have been terrorists?”

    “Yes. The president believes that passing common sense gun laws that makes it harder for people with bad intentions to get guns, makes the country safer,” responded Earnest.

    “But so the president thinks that when there are potentially two terrorists sitting around planning a mass murder they may call it off because President Obama has put in place common sense gun laws?” Doocy shot back.

    “Why wouldn’t we make it harder for them? What’s the explanation for that?” responded Earnest.

    The Obama White House is essentially arguing that passing more gun laws which disarm law-abiding citizens will somehow make jihadists, who have access to international terrorist contacts and back-door weapons smuggling rings, less determined and less capable of carrying out massacres.
    http://www.truthandaction.org/obama-...ontrol-laws/2/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  5. #334
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Obama to tackle 'unfinished business' of gun violence in 2016

    9 hrs ago


    President Barack Obama, in a New Year's address, made fighting gun violence a resolution for 2016, calling it a major piece of "unfinished business" in his time at the White House.

    As he marks the start of his final year in the White House, Obama expressed regret at the little progress made in the past seven years towards remedying America's gun "epidemic."

    "My New Year's resolution is to move forward on our unfinished business as much as I can," he said. "That's especially true for one piece of unfinished business, that's our epidemic of gun violence."

    The US leader announced he would meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Monday, his first day back at work after the New Year's break, "to discuss our options" in reducing the deaths and injuries caused by firearms.

    "Last month, we remembered the third anniversary of Newtown," the president said, referring to a December 2012 mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school that left 20 young children and six adults dead.

    "This Friday, I'll be thinking about my friend Gabby Giffords, five years into her recovery from the shooting in Tucson," he said, speaking of a former US congresswoman and victim of yet another of the spasms of gun violence that have killed and injured thousands across the nation.

    Obama reiterated his frustration at the lack of action by Congress to curb gun violence.

    "All across America, survivors of gun violence and those who lost a child, a parent, a spouse to gun violence are forced to mark such awful anniversaries every single day, and yet Congress still hasn't done anything to prevent what happened to them from happening to other families," the president said.

    "Three years ago, a bipartisan, commonsense bill would have required background checks for virtually everyone who buys a gun," the president said, saying such a measure would have had the support of the vast majority of the American public, including those who were gun owners.

    "But the gun lobby mobilized against it. And the Senate blocked it," Obama said.

    "Since then, tens of thousands of our fellow Americans have been mowed down by gun violence. Tens of thousands."

    According to CNN, Obama is expected to announce new executive action before his State of the Union address on January 12, with the goal of expanding background checks on gun sales.

    In his New Year's address, the president said measures to be discussed with Lynch will focus on "keeping an irresponsible, dangerous few from inflicting harm on a massive scale."

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartandhp
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  6. #335
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  7. #336
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  8. #337
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    ONE fact about basically EVERY mass shooting proves liberals wrong about guns

    Written by The Analytical Economist on January 5, 2016

    Is there any truth to the old statement that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?

    Every time there’s a mass shooting we’re asked where that good guy was. Ironically, those good guys were busy obeying gun laws set up by liberals that prohibited them from acting.

    In his remarks today, President Obama listed some of the country’s most recent tragic mass shootings. Of course, as does every liberal, he overlooked one key fact.

    As criminologist John Lott writes in National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-carry-laws-do

    Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns.

    The two instances were the International House of Pancakes restaurant in Carson City, Nevada on September 6, 2011 and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011.

    Coincidence? Not by a long shot:

    Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones. The Charleston, S.C., church shooting in June was instead almost a college shooting. But that killer changed his plans after realizing that the College of Charleston had armed guards.

    James Holmes, the movie theater killer, decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its ‘substantial security.’ Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked.

    In America there are nearly as many guns as there are people. Liberals will rhetorically state that if more guns really did make us safer, we would be one of the safest nations in the world, but it’s their own policies preventing that. What good is owning a gun for self-defense if you can’t bring it to the public places where the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur?

    Only one group of people obeys those laws, and it isn’t the criminals.


    http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/01/on...ng-about-guns/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  9. #338
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    BACKFIRE: Liberal California HAS Strict Gun Control. The Facts…
    Steven Crowder Thursday December 3 2015


    Thirty seconds didn’t go by before leftists were calling for stricter “common sense gun laws” after the San Bernardino shootings. They had their fingers on their gun control Twitter rhetoric and pulled it as soon as people’s bodies hit the floor (see what I did there?). Now, if you’re like me and already thought that California Gun Laws were already the strictest in the country, or that California Gun Laws specifically were proving to save lives, LOL at you for waiting until facts came in.

    Here’s a taste at just how thorough California Gun Laws are…

    You also have to have earned a state-issued “Handgun Safety Certificate” for legal handgun ownership purchasing, which requires that “you must score at least 75% on an objective written test pertaining to firearms laws and safety requirements,” with tests “administered by DOJ Certified Instructors, who are generally located at firearms dealerships. An HSC is valid for five years.” [UPDATE/CORRECTION: As of 2015, this requirement covers all weapons, not just handguns, and is now known as the “Firearms Safety Certificate.”]

    You must also “successfully perform a safe handling demonstration with the handgun being purchased or acquired. Safe handling demonstrations must be performed in the presence of a DOJ Certified Instructor sometime between the date the DROS is submitted to the DOJ and the delivery of the handgun, and are generally performed at the firearms dealership.”
    Behold a map:



    Yeah, this is from the NRA.





    This isn’t from the NRA. Smartgunlaws.org gives CA an A-. It also gives Illinois a B+

    Got those two maps in mind? Strict gun laws in California and Illinois. Now, check this out:



    YIKES!

    In other words, getting your hands on a gun in California, if you’re a law-abiding citizen, is pretty gosh darn hard. Not that it ultimately matters when death numbers come out.




    Oh, also, before I forget, we know that the two Muslim shooters acquired the guns legally.


    Now federal agencies say the two assault rifles and two handguns used in the bloodshed were perfectly legal purchases. Two of the weapons were purchased by someone who is now being investigated, authorities added, according to ABC.
    Which means more background checks wouldn’t have helped.

    Not that logic matters here. That’s the trick. Logic has zero place in the gun control debate (read Dear Disingenuous, Opportunistic, Gun-grabbing Bastards). Mostly the debate is about feelings, knee-jerk reactions, hashtag campaigns, and a heap ton of more feelings with knee-jerk reactions, all in hopes of eventually repealing the Second Amendment to disarm the American people. The liberals of this country hate guns. Can we agree on that? Okay, wait. They hate guns in the hands of average citizens. They’re totally cool with guns in the hands of their secret service and/or bodyguards, though.



    So any time there’s a shooting, facts be damned. Gun control agenda takes center stage. San Bernardino was terrorism the media and leftists are now trying to claim was “workplace violence.” Wrong. Terrorism. With legally purchased guns. Say the words, liberals. Terrorism. Legally purchased.

    Also, what stops a bad guy or a pair of terrorists with guns? Good guys with guns. Like this guy in a Burger King who foiled a robbery plot. Or this guy who conceal carried and shot an armed robber.

    The Second Amendment is our right. Not just for muskets either, so put a cork in that stupid argument.




    http://louderwithcrowder.com/did-cal...an-bernardino/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  10. #339
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Just a week before the final Obama state of the union address and while we’re focused on the unconstitutional executive orders on “gun control,” President Obama will continue his disregard for the rule of law.

    This action comes at a time when Islamic jihadism is at an all time high and its reach spans the entire globe. President Obama will once again violate Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution — but at least this time Obama is complying with his own signed National Defense Authorization Act.

    As reported by the impeccable Catherine Herridge at Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...rom-gitmo.html
    “The group of 17 detainees expected to be transferred out of Guantanamo Bay as early as this week includes “multiple bad guys” and “Al Qaeda followers,” a source who has reviewed the list told Fox News.

    Little is known publicly about which prisoners are being prepared for transfer, but the Obama administration has notified Congress it plans to ship out 17 detainees – some of whom could be transferred within days. While the identities of the men are closely held, the source who spoke with Fox News said it includes “multiple bad guys … not taxi drivers and cooks.”

    This is a reference to the administration’s transfer of Ibrahim al Qosi to Sudan in 2012. Despite entering a “re-integration program,” the one-time cook for Usama bin Laden has now fled to Yemen, where he is among the leadership of Al Qaeda in Yemen. That transfer is now said to be a source of considerable heartburn for the Obama administration.

    As for those on the docket for immediate transfer, the source told Fox News the administration will not identify the detainees until they are relocated in their new home countries — because knowing who they are in advance would create further roadblocks and increase the controversy. The move to clear out 17 detainees is seen as part of the administration’s long-term plan to ultimately shutter the detention camp. The transfer of 17 prisoners would bring the number of detainees left down to 90 – the bulk of whom cannot be transferred to another country.”
    Now, we’ve shared with you the insidious claim President Obama made during his final press conference of 2015 when he stated that closing GITMO is part of his counter-terrorism strategy. If there was a more backwards policy, someone please tell me.

    Here we are in the fight against Islamic terrorism — ok, well some are; Obama is not — and we’re releasing the enemy to populate the battlefield. Again, let me reiterate, Obama doesn’t have an American agenda; he’s following a liberal progressive agenda based on a delusional self-imposed reality rooted in campaign promises. Someone needs to inform President Obama that he’s not running for office anymore — oops, I may have misspoken, he could be auditioning for U.N. Secretary-General.

    How many times have we been told these final few remaining in GITMO are the worst of the worst? And this is why the secret release of the five senior Taliban leaders was vital. In Obama’s mind if they could be released, then everyone else certainly could be set free — and that’s what’s happening.

    If anyone can provide me a better definition of aiding and abetting the enemy, as well as providing material support and comfort, tell me. Why are we setting the enemy free when the enemy is still fighting us and gaining strength and momentum, seemingly daily?

    And if you haven’t been paying attention, ISIS just launched a counteroffensive against the Iraqi Army forces in Ramadi. It is not “liberated” as we were told.

    “President Obama in his year-end news conference justified the closure of the detention camp, claiming “Guantanamo continues to be one of the key magnets for jihadi recruitment.” But the Middle East Media Research Institute, or MEMRI, which tracks jihadist propaganda, said that terrorist groups have moved on from using Guantanamo in their recruitment efforts. “The topic of Guantanamo prisoners appeared rather frequently in Al-Qaeda’s propaganda in past years,” MEMRI’s Eliot Zweig said. “However, the topic has received little to no attention in the last year or two … Gitmo hasn’t received much attention in official ISIS releases.”
    In other words, the whole GITMO argument used by Obama is yet another false narrative – like, ya know, Benghazi was all about an anti-Islam video. I’d love to have a chance to publicly debate President Obama on his GITMO strategy.

    I would love to ascertain from him exactly what his end game is. This enemy has been attacking America since the earliest days of our existence, as Jefferson and Adams learned. Long before there was a GITMO there was the seizure of our embassy. There was the Beirut barracks bombing. Leon Klinghoffer was pushed off the Achille Lauro. Americans have been taken hostage and killed, like Daniel Pearl, long before there was a GITMO.

    The policy President Obama espouses is deceptive and disingenuous. I would just prefer him coming out and saying he embraces, identifies, and sympathizes with Islamic jihadists and terrorists. I’d prefer he just tell us the truth, that he supports and believes in their “struggle,” their jihad.

    There is no valid and logical reason for Obama’s actions in releasing these savage barbarians and killers back onto the battlefield. They are unlawful enemy combatants and deserve food, water, shelter — actually, they should just be killed.

    And no, I didn’t agree with the liberal progressives of the Democrat Party attacking President George W. Bush and forcing him to release GITMO combatants. I recall the awful castigation of one Democrat Senator Dick Durbin when he compared the GITMO military staff to Nazis, the Soviet gulag, and even to maniacal killer Pol Pot.

    And he never apologized.

    This is the deranged world of progressive socialists, who believe we’re wrong for taking the enemy off the battlefield. This is the mentality of those who see America as the problem — not the jihadists who attack, rape, crucify, and behead.

    So a week before the final State of the Union address where President Barack Obama will traipse down the center aisle of the people’s house, the House of Representatives, he releases more of the enemy our brave Warriors spent their efforts to capture.

    I gotta tell ya, I don’t think we’ll ever see anything like this again occupying the White House — unless we’re dumb enough to allow the election of Hillary Clinton. She’s already said we must empathize with the enemy.

    http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/01/ob...ecretly-doing/
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  11. #340
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    The Gun Debate Illuminates the Broader Constitutional Crisis
    By: Daniel Horowitz | January 5th, 2016

    We live in an era when one entire political party believes that what is in the Constitution is not in it and what’s not in the Constitution is really enshrined in the ever-evolving elastic document. What’s worse, the federal judges who align with this party, yet are sworn to uphold the Constitution, believe in the same backwards vision.

    Consider the following: The Constitution doesn’t mention a word about gay marriage (or marriage at all), yet liberals believe it does. At the same time, the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined into our Bill of Rights in the most unambiguous language (“… shall not be infringed …”), yet they believe it can and should be infringed upon. Put another way, while states are now precluded from denying a positive privilege to gay couples — a privilege over which they had plenary power since the founding of our country — they have the power to take negative action against someone who peacefully bears arms. The relevant clause of the Second Amendment assures “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    There are three observations that should automatically jump out at any student of the Constitution.

    The Second Amendment was not merely expressed in a positive sense — “there shall be a right to keep and bear arms.” Were that the case, one could conceivably make the case for Congress or a state legislature limiting a number of options and conditions for gun rights as long as there were enough remaining lawful opportunities to fulfill those rights. Rather, it was expressed in the strongest negative terms directed at the government — that the right “shall not be infringed.” The notion that states can categorically ban numerous popular firearms and ammo and place substantial burdens on even purchasing and owning any firearm is preempted by the most unequivocal language afforded to any fundamental right at the federal level. Yet, it took 200 years for the Court to “discover” the most foundational of unalienable rights in the Heller and McDonald decisions to overturn full gun bans. [1] Even since those cases, however, the lower courts are upholding anything short of complete categorical bans and the Supreme Court is casually denying review of these precedents. [2]

    I’m not one of those who believe we should rely on the courts to protect our rights, or that this was even the core objective of creating a judiciary. If, however, courts are going to discover all sorts of new super rights that are alien or antithetical to our founding values, and impose them upon the states, how can they sit idly while states violate the one right that is explicitly walled off with the impervious language of “shall not be infringed”?

    The fact that the text of the amendment uses the words keep and bear arms demonstrates incontrovertibly that the authors’ intent was to protect the right to carry on one’s person at all times, not just in one’s home. This language was taken directly from the Virginia recommendation for a bill of rights, proposed by George Wythe, the first American law professor, at the ratifying convention in June 1788. In a letter to John Cartwright, Thomas Jefferson was unequivocal that “it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” He advised Americans that a “gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” It is appalling that so many states either prohibit or place a substantial burden on carrying a firearm or that people are restricted from carrying across state lines. It wasn’t until 2012 that a district judge in Maryland agreed to strike down the state’s anti-carry laws, but in Woollard v. Gallagher the 4th Circuit upheld the unconstitutional laws and the Supreme Court obnoxiously denied cert to the petitioners. [3]

    The Second Amendment refers to gun rights as “the” right. This language was reserved for all of the fundamental, unalienable rights granted by God — the same language used for the freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. This is why many conservatives don’t like using the term “Second Amendment right” when referring to the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment didn’t’ create the right; it is God given and self-evident. It is for this reason that many of the Federalists, including James Madison, at least initially, were opposed to adding fundamental rights into the Bill of Rights. They feared it would give off the impression that A) these rights were granted by the Constitution and not God and B) these were the only rights reserved to the people. [4]

    The right to self-defense is ranked among the most unalienable rights and is indispensable to protecting the foundational rights of life, liberty, and property. While most conservative originalists believe that not all clauses of the Bill of Rights necessarily applied to the states and that the 14th Amendment did not “incorporate” the states into the Bill of Rights, even a state government cannot harm a God-given right (as I noted last week with regards to religious liberty). Judge Timothy Farrar, who wrote the first and most respected post-14th Amendment constitutional treatise, seamlessly listed the right to bear arms among the unalienable rights that states cannot violate. [5] St. George Tucker, one of the earliest respected commentators on the Constitution, referred to gun rights as “the true palladium of liberty.” [6] The self-evident nature of the complete right to bear arms was such a given that there was virtually no debate on this part of the Bill of Rights when Madison introduced it in the House of Representatives. All of the debate centered on the phrase about the militia and whether Quakers could be drafted into such a force. [7]

    Madison [in Federalist no. 46] referred to the right to bear arms as a right that “Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” It is why, until recently, we have done a better job preserving fundamental rights than any other nation. Not even a state government can infringe upon this right, yet we now have a president who thinks he can do so unilaterally without Congress at a federal level. The only question that remains is if we will let him.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/c....QiwYkdgq.dpuf
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

  12. #341
    Jolie Rouge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Lan astaslem !
    Posts
    60,656
    Thanks
    2,750
    Thanked 5,510 Times in 3,654 Posts
    Obama’s Gun-Control Plan Includes Gun-Ban For Some Social Security Beneficiaries

    According to the White House executive order preview:

    Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS. The reporting that SSA, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is expected to require will cover appropriate records of the approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent. The rulemaking will also provide a mechanism for people to seek relief from the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm for reasons related to mental health.
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...beneficiaries/




    Today Barack Obama gave a speech devoid of any legitimate data, statistics or observable facts. He simply appealed to the emotions of an ignorant voting base and claimed that he would put laws into place... laws that already exist. Laws like mandatory background checks and fully automatic weapons being illegal. All of which are already on the books.

    Make no mistake: this IS a Trojan horse, and the man is a tyrant.
    http://www.LouderWithCrowder.com
    Last edited by Jolie Rouge; 01-05-2016 at 04:05 PM.
    Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in