Thread: The "New" Gun Control ...

Happy Liberal Memorial Day: 26 Shot in Baltimore, 55 Shot in Chicago
May 26, 2015

This is how our 2 most liberal cities “celebrated” Memorial Day weekend… 26 were shot in Baltimore and 55 in Chicago.

First up is the “no justice, no peace” city of Baltimore.

One month after the Baltimore riots, less visible violence still engulfs the city. It was seen over the Memorial Day Weekend via 26 shootings, nine of which were fatal.

The newest fatalities raise the number of fatalities in May to 35.
According to CBS Baltimore, this makes May 2015 the deadliest month on record for Baltimore since December 1999. It also brings the number of people killed in Baltimore so far this year to 108.

Next we go to Chicago, the city currently being run by one of Barack Obama’s former Chiefs of Staff, Rham Emanuel.

In the Windy City, 55 people were shot from Friday to Monday and 12 killed, including a 4-year-old girl.

This update from the Chicago Sun-Times:


http://conservativepost.com/happy-li...ot-in-chicago/

It is no secret that President Barack Obama’s administration has no love for the Second Amendment and is trying its best to strip away rights and disarm as many Americans as possible.

Although the Congress has held the line and refused to pass any of the progressive left’s proposed gun control legislation, Obama has shown that he will just go around them, enacting gun control through executive action and regulation. http://conservativetribune.com/lynch...ts-gun-owners/

“This is simply unbelievable. On the one hand the [Veterans Administration] and the FBI have found veterans to be mentally ill and too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms, while on the other hand allowing these allegedly dangerous people to buy their firearms rights back,” said Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation.

“This is simply unbelievable. On the one hand the [Veterans Administration] and the FBI have found veterans to be mentally ill and too dangerous to be allowed to own firearms, while on the other hand allowing these allegedly dangerous people to buy their firearms rights back,” said Michael Connelly, executive director of the United States Justice Foundation.

http://conservativetribune.com/obama...ndment-rights/

Bill Clinton: ‘You Can’t Have People Walking Around With Guns’

June 15, 2015 by Greg Campbell

To people like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg and a variety of other liberals, people walking around armed is a supposedly dangerous situation. However, what these liberal whack-jobs refuse to disclose is that while they seek disarmament for the rest of society, they happily enjoy the safety that comes from being surrounded by a team of men with guns- which is what makes Bill Clinton’s recent comments so enraging: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/...und-with-guns/

Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” former President Bill Clinton told CNN’s Jake Tapper that the Baltimore and Ferguson civil unrest is a result of too many, “people walking around with guns” combined with a lack of community trust.

Clinton said, “The Baltimore thing came on the heels of what happened in Ferguson, what happened in New York City and all these other places. And there is a big national movement about whether the lives of young African-American men count.”

“You can’t have people walking around with guns. I used to tell people when we did Bosnia, Kosovo anything like that, you get enough people with weapons around and there will be unattended consequences. People make mistakes People do wrong. Things happen. To hold a community together you got to have a high level of community trust.”

It’s funny; modern liberals believe that they get to have a say in who should and should not be armed when, in reality, this issue was decided over 200 years ago. If Clinton needs a refresher on the Second Amendment, I’ll be happy to send him a pocket Constitution. I have plenty.

http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/bi...und-with-guns/

British Police Call On Nation To ‘Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife’
As ‘Knife Violence’ Continues



The news out of the United Kingdom almost reads like a satire piece from The Onion. But as strange as it may sound to people around the world, and especially in the United States, the British police push to ban knives is no joke.

The new “Save a Life – Surrender Your Knife” program is in full swing and police are telling us that they have joined forces with an already growing trend in the United Kingdom to ban “pointy” knives.

Those bins will be in cities all over the U.K. as this call for people to turn in pointed knives continues.


Lancashire Police tell us that an “amnesty” program began at the end of August, and “more than 800 knives have been handed in across the county – including swords, machetes and commando knives.”

“The amnesty was extended for a further week owing to its success,” Lancashire Police representatives explained.

The Lancashire department explains that their “officers have now given their backing to a national initiative designed to raise awareness of knife crime and encourage the surrender of dangerous weapons.”

In spite of the amnesty ending this week, police tell us that “people can continue to hand in any knife at any police station with a front counter as well being able to drop them into the designated bins.”

Those bins will be in cities all over the U.K. as this call for people to turn in pointed knives continues.

“We are keen to raise awareness of the devastating impact of knife crime and to reduce the number of families affected so we have decided to keep the knife bins indefinitely,” Detective Chief Inspector Steve Dowson said.

“While projects encouraging the surrender of knives are not a single solution to violence, they have an important role to play in inspiring communities to get behind education and preventative measures,” he added. “Such campaigns show a desire to address local concerns and Lancashire Police is keen to throw our weight behind them in support.

“We’ve been delighted with the response so far, but our communities have told us that they want an end to knife crime and that they want to work with us to make that happen.”

call from the British Medical Journal was published several years ago, arguing that “many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon,” according to the BBC.

Researchers “consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen. None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.”

Again, we remind our readers outside of the UK, that this is not satire, just another example of the government claiming they are here to protect us from ourselves.

In the UK, the rate of knife violence is approximately one in every 374 people victimized, compared with a rate of one in 750 people victimized by gun violence in the United States.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/1...for-knife-ban/


British Reformers Propose Ban On Pointy Kitchen Knives



What will happen to Col. Mustard in the dining room with the kitchen knife? It is not just Clue aficionados that will be effected by a new reform being proposed in England, pointy kitchen knives may soon be a thing of the past. A group associated with West Middlesex University Hospital is proposing a ban in the British Medical Journal on pointy kitchen knives as unnecessary from a culinary standpoint and downright dangerous from a crime standpoint.

The proponents of the ban insist that the ready availability of pointy kitchen knives are fueling injuries, particularly in cases involving alcohol and drugs where they are used as weapons.

The group interviewed 10 top chefs around England and none of the chefs described pointy knives as essential. They said that they could use small pointed knives instead that threaten a far less serious wound in an attack. There does remain of course the question of the cleaver which resembles a medieval weapon.

The group notes that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives. I doubt though that those are kids carrying kitchen knives, which leads to the question if other knives like camping knives will also be banned.

One fact that I was not aware of was that the French ordered table and street knives ground smooth in the 17th Century and that blunt kitchen knives were decreed in England in the 18th Century. We have seen a steady stream of kitchen knife attacks like this one where the availability of the knives combines with momentary rage.

For many, the proposal is a continuation of England’s reputation as a growing “nanny state.” We have previously discussed (here and here and here and here) some English laws that do appear to micromanage the choices of adults in that country. Previously we saw how scissors were being regulated at English library in fear of people stabbing each other. This proposal does raise the interesting question of why kitchen knives have to be pointed. I can see an educational campaign to encourage people to move away from the use of such knives, but is a prohibition warranted?

Ironically, the move will be cited by NRA advocates who have long argued that once guns were regulated, advocates would move to control kitchen knives. The argument was treated as absurd but this proposal is now picking up steam inside and outside England.

Putting aside the personal choice issue, there is also the question of what Hollywood will do without the ever present kitchen knife to use in movies like Fatal Attraction. Somehow the blunt butter knife is not going to cut it, even in the hands of a furious Glenn Close. Of course, Gwyneth Paltrow showed how a meat thermometer can be a perfect substitute in A Perfect Murder.

So what do you think? Is it time to disarm Col. Mustard . . . or if we outlaw kitchen knives, will only outlaws be able to chop and mince effectively?

Source: BBC
http://jonathanturley.org/2014/01/24...itchen-knives/

No guns on post office property, says U.S. appeals court
Reuters By Jonathan Stempel
June 26, 2015 7:15 PM

(Reuters) - A federal appeals court said a U.S. Postal Service regulation banning firearms on postal property is constitutional, and reversed a lower court ruling that would have let people keep weapons inside their vehicles in post office parking lots.

By a 2-1 vote on Friday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against Tab Bonidy, a licensed gun owner who said the restrictions violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Circuit Judge David Ebel said the right to carry firearms does not apply to federal buildings such as post offices, and that while it was a "closer question" he would not second-guess the Postal Service's extending the ban to its parking lots.

"The security of the postal building itself is integrally related to the security of the parking lot adjacent to it," Ebel wrote.

Bonidy, joined as a plaintiff by the National Association for Gun Rights, sued after learning he would be prosecuted if he carried a firearm into a post office in Avon, Colorado, near the Vail ski resort, or stored it in the post office parking lot while he went inside to pick up his mail.

"My clients are obviously disappointed, and we're weighing our options," said Steven Lechner, chief legal officer of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which represented the plaintiffs.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which defended the regulation, was not immediately available for comment.

Friday's decision partially reversed a 2013 ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch in Denver.

Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich dissented, saying he would have voided the regulation as applied to the parking lot.

The case is Bonidy et al v. U.S. Postal Service et al, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-1374.

http://news.yahoo.com/no-guns-post-o...--finance.html

Just saying:

This could solve the gun concerns!

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.


In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States - who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.

In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX.

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US ...

In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

SCOTUS same-sex marriage decision may have just legalized the concealed carry of loaded firearms across all 50 states, nullifying gun laws everywhere
Monday, June 29, 2015
by Mike Adams

The legal argument of gay marriage proponents is that because gay marriage is legal in a majority of states, that "right" cannot be infringed by the remaining states which opposed gay marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court, in granting this new, nationwide right to gay marriage, cited the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, Section 1, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The actual ruling text of the SCOTUS decision makes it clear that its "equal protection" logic would apply universally to concealed carry gun rights which already exist in a majority of states:

(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs... When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution's central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. Applying these tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution.

Similarly, the right to keep and bear arms has also long been protected by the Constitution and affirmed in multiple Supreme Court decisions, as early as last year. "In District of Columbia v Heller (2008) -- the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd Amendment rights were 'fundamental' in and of themselves as well as 'fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty'" writes Hawkins at Breitbart.com.

If this right to keep and bear arms (and to carry concealed firearms) is already recognized in some states, then by the Supreme Court's own precedent on gay marriage, that right cannot be denied in ANY state!

The Supreme Court, in other words, appears to have just nullified gun control laws all across America.

As Bob Owens writes on BearingArms.com,

"By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends 'certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy' accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are 'shall issue' on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states."

He continues:

I'll be driving through the District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York in several weeks, places that until yesterday I did not have a legal right to concealed carry. As of today, with this decision, it would seem that these states and the District must honor my concealed carry permit, or violate my constitutional rights under the 14th and Second Amendment.

AWR Hawkins, writing for Breitbart.com, adds:

When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that every state must recognize same sex marriages, they used a basis for judgement that will not easily stop at same sex marriage. In fact, it is a basis for judgement that should offer itself to national reciprocity of concealed carry permits and permit holders.


"Equal protection" must now apply to all things, not just gay marriage

The fascinating part of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage is that it sets a precedent of a principled interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment which must now be applied to everything.

The Supreme Court, in other words, just made the argument for nullifying most gun control laws across America. As explained again by Bob Owens in another article on BearingArms.com:

...[I]f there is any intellectual and logical consistency in the Supreme Court's arguments at all, the 'due process' argument must be applied as equally to state and local gun laws, sweeping them aside entirely, and reaffirming the clear command in the Second Amendment that, '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.'

All, state and local on concealed and open carry would seem to be invalidated, and citizens should be allowed to carry firearms, either openly or concealed, anywhere they want to go.

Dare the Court dare claim that the 14th Amendment's due process clause only applies in specific and narrow instances?

That's the thing about court decisions, you see: we can't just pick and choose where they apply. A powerful new principle of "equal protection" must now be interpreted across all issues, not just the narrow issue of same-sex marriage.

As Marc Greendorfer explains in his amicus brief to the court:

One day, the Court will have to explain how sweeping restrictions on every aspect of firearms ownership and use can be upheld yet traditional and long-standing regulations on marriage cannot be tolerated in any form or in any jurisdiction.

In other words, if the Court is to have any logical consistency at all, it will have no choice but to declare nearly all gun control laws nationwide to be null and void, in precisely the same way it just declared all "marriage control" laws to be null and void. After all, "equal protection" must be equal, or it has no meaning at all (and the Supreme Court itself becomes a total joke).


That's how freedom works: It's not just freedom for YOUR favorite issues, but freedom for other issues, too
You can't discriminate against people based on their personal beliefs, you see. So if gay couples' right to be married must be universally recognized across all states, then gun owners' right to carry firearms must also be universally recognized across all states. That's the way freedom works: once a principle is affirmed and set into the history of interpretation of law, it must be applied universally.

I can already see the comedic bumper stickers from all this: IF YOU GET TO MARRY, WE GET TO CARRY!

In essence, the U.S. Supreme Court just handed the NRA the very argument it might now use to nullify gun restriction laws everywhere. The NRA merely needs to file suit in a lower court, cite the Obergefall decision, and kick the lawsuit all the way back up the chain to SCOTUS. There, the Court must decide in a manner consistent with the same-sex marriage "rights," or else it will cease to carry any real authority at all.

The realization of all this, of course, will drive many of the same-sex marriage lobbyists absolutely insane. They did not see this unintended consequence of "equal protection" being applied to other topics. But that's how equality actually works, isn't it? Equality means the principle is equally applied to other contexts.


Gay gun rights advocates are no doubt thrilled with this realization

You might be surprised, by the way, to learn that there is a group of gay gun rights advocates who must now be double-thrilled to learn the implications of all this. The group is called the Pink Pistols, and this list of local chapters shows they have members all across the nation, from New York to Texas. Their slogan? "Armed gays don't get bashed." Gotta love it!

Anyone who believes in universal freedom, not selective freedom, should support both the rights of people to be gay as well as be armed for self defense. If you happen to both gay and armed, check out the Pink Pistols.

http://www.naturalnews.com/050237_SC...#ixzz3epei2Mcs

"If you get to marry, we get to carry."

I must say, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The best way to apply gun control regulations, in my opinion, is to ensure that responsible gun owners go through the proper channels required to acquire their concealed carry licenses. This is not easy, to say the least.

Still, it's easier, and often cheaper, for a criminal to pick up a bootleg gun from the local black market arms dealer, with the intention of using said firearm to engage in illegal activities. So, does it not make sense, for those of us who value the Constitution as a whole, to fully embrace our 2nd Amendment rights as law abiding citizens? Who else is going to uphold the sacred duty that every (wo)man has, to ensure the security and common defense of one's Community, as well as the greater Republic?

Mind you, I believe in the Right to Bear Arms of every kind, especially the one's we're born with. A well trained, empty handed martial artist can be just as deadly as any gun toting thug. The only difference is a desire to protect Life, rather than a desire to inflict Harm. That is the essence of a Ksatriya.

July 19th, 2015
Authoritarian Obama Administration Now Seeking to Block Social Security Recipients from Owning Guns

The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...ry.html#page=1

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”

The latest move is part of the efforts by President Obama to strengthen gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.

Critics are blasting the plan, saying that expanding the list of people who cannot own guns based on financial competence is wrongheaded.

The ban, they argue, would keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people, but would also include people who simply have a bad memory or have a hard time balancing a checkbook.

The background check for gun ownership started in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was partially paralyzed after being shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Gun stores are required to run the names of potential buyers through a computerized system before every sale.
http://conservativerefocus.com/blogs...on-now-seeking

... laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others ...

Second Amendment .... Perverted

Obama gun control?

A special assistant to the president — the president who recently lamented that an inability to pass gun control was one of the great failures of his administration — was arrested Friday after she allegedly fired a pistol at her boyfriend during a domestic dispute. Barvetta Singletary, 37, didn't help advance her boss' crusade against gun violence when she invited her boyfriend, a Capitol Hill police officer, over to her house for sex. Afterwards, she accused him of seeing another woman and demanded to see the texts on his cellphones. When he refused, Singletary reached into her boyfriend's bag, according to the arresting documents, and pulled out the two cellphones and his service weapon, a .40-caliber Glock 23. She demanded he tell her the passwords to the phones. He refused. "Your phone is more important than me holding the gun on you," she said, shooting the couch where he was sitting. Singletary was the Obama administration's House legislative affairs liaison and was paid $125,000 a year. Let's just say she wasn't a low-level staffer. And her purposeful gun crime while working for this gun-hostile administration is more important than the time Dick Cheney accidentally shot a friend while hunting. But which one received more news coverage?

--PatriotPost.us