The "New" Gun Control ...

[Jolie Rouge]

Anti-gun Celebrities Prove They’re Hypocrites by Being Protected by Armed Guards
Michael Cantrell
January 11, 2016



Brain dead Hollywood progressives love to feign outrage over the latest mass shooting, heading over to their Twitter accounts to immediately capitalize off tragedy as a means of gaining more fans and hopefully scoring points with the culture to keep their career going.

Ironically, during Sunday night’s Golden Globes, most of those same idiotic, anti-Second Amendment thumpers from the entertainment industry were protected by armed guards.

Ahh, the foul stench of hypocrisy.



You see, what these hypocrites fail to understand is that they can afford this sort of security on a daily basis thanks to the bloated paychecks they receive to play pretend.

The average American — who works paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to pay rent — cannot hire private security around the clock to ensure their safety. Hence, the reason why the Second Amendment exists.

The right to own a firearm allows a person to protect themselves and to truly love their neighbor by having the means to defend their lives should something awful happen.

If you take away their right to own a gun, they — along with their neighbor — will be defenseless against evil, and that, my friends, is the very epitome of moral indecency.





http://www.youngcons.com/anti-gun-ce...-armed-guards/

[Advertisement]

[Jolie Rouge]

Washington Post: Obama’s Gun Controls Not Enough, Confiscation Needed

by AWR Hawkins14 Jan 20168,295

On January 13 The Washington Post observed that President Obama’s executive gun controls do not portend a substantial reduction in gun crime because they lack the one key element–gun confiscation.

According to WAPO, confiscation “is likely the only policy that would dramatically reduce gun violence in the United States.” They cite the possibility of disillusionment with the executive actions Obama put forward on January 5, based on the fact that Obama admitted the actions “might have only a modest impact” at best.

WAPO quoted Obama speaking at the January 7 gun control town hall, saying, “We’re not going to eliminate gun violence, but we will lessen it. If we take that number from 30,000 down to, let’s say, 28,000, that’s 2,000 families who don’t have to go through what the families at Newtown or San Bernardino or Charleston went through.”

The Washington Post observed:

Obama believes his policies can save thousands of lives a year, but acknowledges that gun shots would still kill tens of thousands of Americans annually. That intense level of firearms violence is one that Obama and other gun-control advocates might be forced to tolerate unless they push measures that are more invasive than background checks.

The Post says one policy that has worked in other countries is confiscation. They point to “Australia’s mandatory buy-back scheme” as an example of such a policy. And Obama and Hillary Clinton have both pointed to such a confiscatory scheme at various times themselves.

Obama mentioned confiscation in the wake of the October 1 firearm-based attack in Umpqua Community College’s gun free zone. Clinton cited Australian gun confiscation as “worth looking at” for U.S. gun policy during an October 16 town hall at Keene State College.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ce-in-america/

[Jolie Rouge]

Hillary’s Six Steps Plan To Take Away Our 2nd Amendment Rights…

Consider Australian-style gun ban.

Australia recently managed to take away tens of thousands – even millions – of handguns, and in one year they were all gone. Can we do that? And if we can’t, why can’t we?”

Allow Crime Victims To Sue Gun Manufacturers.

This would allow crime victims and anti-gun attorneys to sue gun makers for incidents in which criminals misuse firearms.

Allow Crime Victims to Sue Gun Sellers

This point is very similar to Clinton’s push against gun manufacturers.

Replace Instant Background Checks With Indefinite Background Checks

Clinton wants to expand the time frame in which a background for a gun purchase is conducted.

[I]Outlaw Private Gun Sales and Add No-Fly List to Background Checks[I]

These two proposals go together because they illustrate the tactic of limiting the avenues available for law-abiding gun purchases, while simultaneously tightening the parameters for such purchases.

http://conservativepost.com/exposed-...endment-right/

MORE : http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...rol-proposals/

[Jolie Rouge]

[Jolie Rouge]

Department of Justice Plea Bargain for Dontray Mills - Mostly Truth!

Summary of eRumor:

Questions about the Department of Justice and President Obama have surfaced after a Milwaukee man was sentenced to one year of probation and no jail time for illegally purchasing 55 guns.

The Truth:

Dontray Mills was sentenced to a year of probation for illegally purchasing 27 guns, not 55 as has been reported.

Dontray Mills was arrested in April 2014 for using false identification to purchase 27 guns at sporting goods stores in suburban Milwaukee. He was charged with knowingly using false identification to buy guns and was released on bail, a local Fox affiliate reports:

Brian Dorow with Waukesha County Technical College has no firsthand knowledge of this case — but knows the legal process required to buy a gun. He says false identification — like an address, may not be spotted during the process, so long as no felony record or domestic violence conviction is found.

If that drivers license was obtained fraudulently, it would be hard for that dealer to track,” Dorow said.

Mills has neither a felony record, nor a domestic violence conviction.

Investigators are now looking into whether the guns were then resold, and whether any potential buyers were criminals who aren’t allowed to have firearms.

Dontray Mills was eventually charged with 55 counts of buying firearms with fake identification and dealing weapons without a license. He struck a plea bargain with federal prosecutors and pleaded guilty to one count. In August 2015, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa sentence Mills to one year of probation and no jailtime, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports:

In giving probation with no jail time to a Milwaukee man charged with 55 counts of buying firearms with fake identification and dealing them without a license, a federal judge delivered a message:

“People kill people,” U.S. District Rudolph Randa said, echoing a common gun rights slogan. “Guns don’t kill people.”

Dontray Mills, 24, purchased a total of 27 firearms, mostly handguns, between December 2012 and April 2014 and pleaded guilty to one of the charges on April 22, 2014, after an ATF investigation. As a result of the conviction, Mills will never again be able to buy firearms legally.

On Wednesday, he was sentenced. As part of the plea bargain, prosecutors agreed with the one year of probation.

Randa said he recognized the seriousness of the offense and acknowledged the problem of guns winding up in the hands of people who use them to commit violence.

But Mills, Randa said, did not come across as a typical defendant because of his good behavior since the charges and his life ambitions, which include becoming a rap musician. While on bail, Mills twice traveled to Los Angeles to work on a film and to pursue his musical aspirations.

Randa said he had seen plenty of people facing similar charges who bought firearms for friends and then took no responsibility for their actions. Mills, he said, has accepted responsibility.

So, it’s true that Dontray Mills was sentenced to one year of probation after initially being charged with 55 federal counts. No information has been made public, so it’s not clear whether or not Mills provided state evidence that led to other convictions as part of the plea bargain.

A copy of the email submitted to Truthorfiction.com: Collected on: 9/10/2015

https://www.truthorfiction.com/depar...dontray-mills/

[Jolie Rouge]

Feinstein Made Her Gun Control Bill Even Worse

The Senate will soon consider her proposal and two others aimed at stopping "suspected terrorists" from buying firearms.

Jacob Sullum | June 20, 2016 9:32 am

The Senate, reacting to last week's massacre at an Orlando nightclub, will soon consider three different proposals aimed at preventing suspected terrorists from buying guns. The most constitutionally offensive is an amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), while the least problematic is a bill sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), which would require that the Justice Department have enough evidence to support a terrorism charge if it wanted to block a firearm purchase longer than three days. The third proposal, from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), tries to split the difference between the Feinstein and Cornyn bills.

The reliably authoritarian Feinstein took her already egregious Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015 and managed to make it even worse, giving the Justice Department broader authority to block gun purchases and granting would-be buyers even less opportunity to get their Second Amendment rights back. Under Feinstein's 2015 bill, the attorney general can stop the transfer of a firearm if he "1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism" and "(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism." The amendment Feinstein introduced last Wednesday, by contrast, lets the attorney general block a sale if he "determines, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources thereof."

In the revised version, there is no additional requirement that the attorney general have reason to believe the weapon the suspect is trying to buy will be used in a terrorist attack. Hence an old lady who cut a check to a Hamas-affiliated charity (thereby "providing material support" to terrorism and arguably threatening public safety) could be stopped from buying a handgun for self-defense even if there was no evidence that she planned any sort of attack with it. Feinstein's amendment also expands the dragnet beyond the FBI's so-called Terrorist Watchlist, which is believed to include more than 1 million people, to cover anyone who was under investigation for "conduct related to a federal crime of terrorism" during the previous five years. The Justice Department would be notified of attempted gun purchases by people who fit that description, giving it a chance to block the sales.




Feinstein's earlier bill notionally allows someone stripped of his Second Amendment rights to challenge the attorney general's decision, but on terms very favorable to the government, which need only show it is more likely than not that the statutory criteria were met. The upshot is that people could permanently lose their constitutional rights based a low probability that they are involved in terrorism—perhaps on the order of 10 or 15 percent, depending on how "appropriately suspected" and "reasonable belief" are defined. Feinstein apparently decided that standard was too demanding, because her amendment says only that someone wrongly prevented from buying a gun can make use of "the remedial procedures set forth in section 103(g) of Public Law 103-1059."

That provision of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act lets a would-be gun buyer ask the Justice Department to correct "erroneous system information" that resulted in a failed background check. If someone is mistaken for an actual terrorist with a similar name, this provision might help. But if he wants to contest the attorney general's determination that he "represents a threat to public safety," he is apparently out of luck. In fact, as with Feinstein's 2015 bill, the Justice Department might not even have to tell him why his gun purchase was blocked, since it can withhold "information that is likely to compromise national security or ongoing law enforcement operations."

Cornyn's proposal, which is supported by the National Rifle Association, evinces considerably more respect for due process and the Second Amendment. It allows the Justice Department to delay the transfer of a gun to someone who is "a known or suspected terrorist" or who has been "the appropriate subject of a terrorism investigation within the last five years." The government then has three days to persuade a judge there is probable cause to believe the suspect is involved in terrorism—the same standard that must be met to arrest someone. In that respect Cornyn's bill resembles the existing ban on gun purchases by people facing felony charges.

Collins is working on a Goldilocks proposal aimed at those who think that Feinstein's amendment gives the Justice Department too much power to disarm people but that Cornyn's bill gives it too little. Although her idea has not been completely fleshed out yet, The Wall Street Journal reports that it would ban gun sales to "terrorism suspects who appear on either the government's 'no-fly list' or on a separate 'selectee list' that requires additional screening at airports," as opposed to the broader Terrorist Watchlist. The Journal says "individuals could appeal the decision blocking the purchase of a firearm," but it's not clear what the government's burden would be. Collins also would require that the Justice Department be notified when someone who was on one of those lists in the previous five years tries to buy a gun.

That last provision, like the similar ones in Feinstein's amendment and Cornyn's bill, was written with someone like Omar Mateen, perpetrator of the Orlando attack, in mind. Mateen was investigated twice for possible terrorist connections and appeared on at least one watch list during those investigations, but his name was removed after the FBI found no evidence to substantiate its suspicions.

"Over the past decade," Feinstein complains, "91 percent of individuals who are known or suspected terrorists passed background checks, showing this is a pervasive problem. My amendment would simply allow the attorney general to block gun sales to these individuals, and closing this loophole is the least we could do to reduce the risk of terrorist attacks in our country." Those "suspected terrorists" passed background checks because there was no legal reason, such as a pending felony charge, a felony conviction, or a history of forcible psychiatric treatment, to prevent them from exercising their Second Amendment rights. That is not a loophole. That is the rule of law, which Feinstein would replace with the attorney general's whims.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/20/fe...trol-bill-even

[Jolie Rouge]

[Jolie Rouge]

I am curious - how does "tobacco" kill you ? Cancer ?
So are the numbers for Cancer shown above include the deaths due to tobacco related cancers ?

My Dad was a heavy smoker who quit in 1976... and died of lung cancer after a two year battle in 2000.

[Jolie Rouge]

If you don't remember anything else I ever say, I hope you remember this: You cannot stop a man with a gun with a law.
You cannot stop a criminal with a law.
You cannot stop a terrorist with a law.
The only way you stop them is with a gun.

A law might lead to their being punished for what they do -- AFTER the fact -- but a law will NOT stop them from doing it!

How simple and obvious that is! Yet, so many of Obama's policies are based on a premise that is utterly and hopelessly false, such as that we are going to prevent crime or stop terrorism by passing a gun control law. Criminals and terrorists by definition violate the law. They will get a gun, since there are more than 300 million in America, or make a bomb, or simply use a box cutter as in 9/11.

[Jolie Rouge]

Ex-Calif. State Sen. Leland Yee, gun control champion, heading to prison for weapons trafficking

By Yanan Wang February 25 2016

On the surface, the story of Leland Yee looks like a precipitous fall from grace.

The 67-year-old had risen steadily in the ranks of Bay Area politics since the late 80s, when he was elected to the San Francisco School Board. He then went on to sit on the city’s Board of Supervisors and in the state Assembly. The latter role saw him become the first Asian American speaker pro tem in 2004, making him the second-highest ranking Democrat in the California assembly at the time.

From 2006 onwards, Yee served as a state senator and was plotting a secretary of state campaign when his political visions were curtailed by a federal indictment in March 2014.

( Darn those meddlin' kids )

The arrest swept Yee and his associate Keith Jackson, 51, up in charges alongside some of the city’s most notorious characters, notable among them Chinatown gangster Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow. ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nment-conduct/ )

It was one thing for the public to learn that Chow, a known convict, may have become embroiled in more objectionable schemes. But it was quite another to hear that Yee, a respected public figure who had supposedly distanced himself from San Francisco’s corrupt past, was being accused through the same undercover FBI investigation.

This Wednesday, Yee received a five-year prison sentence for accepting bribes and trafficking in arms.

After initially denying culpability, Yee pleaded guilty to the charges last summer.

“I hope that in your sentencing of me, you will look at my entire life and not just these crimes I have committed,” the senator implored U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer on Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times reported. “In the 67 years of my life, I have devoted much of it to the work of the community, to people here in San Francisco and in the state of California.”

Yee added that he was most ashamed to have hurt his family and supporters: “That will always weight on me, and that will always haunt me for the rest of my life.”

Breyer was unsympathetic to the calls for leniency. While holding public office, Yee had accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions in exchange for political favors. And on the side, he and two associates had been involved in a weapons trafficking plot.

These acts were discovered by undercover federal agents investigating organized crime in San Francisco’s Chinatown. Jackson, a former school board president who helped Yee facilitate the bribes, received a nine-year sentence.

“It must be that the public has trust in the integrity of the institution, and Mr. Yee, you abused that trust,” Breyer said, according to the Times. He called Yee’s actions “vile” and the arms dealings particularly “hypocritical” given the politician’s history of gun control advocacy.

Court records show that Yee agreed to perform certain official acts in exchange for mayoral campaign and later secretary of state campaign donations. He obliged one undercover agent who wanted him to make a call to the California Department of Public Health on behalf of an invented contract, as well as another who asked him to take a particular stance on medical marijuana legislation.

Yee also discussed buying weapons overseas and bringing them to the U.S. with two associates and an undercover agent. He accepted $6,800 and a list of arms for purchase in the Philippines.

The maneuvers were not only illegal, but also in stark contrast to what he had long purported to stand for.

Yee told CBS two years before he was arrested: “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear — there is no debate, no discussion.”

As a legislator, Yee supported strict gun control laws and was named to the Brady Campaign’s Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll.

The calamitous epilogue to Yee’s career, then, seems to be an abrupt about-face. During his campaigns, Yee had styled himself as an outsider removed from the corruption that plagued San Francisco governments past.

“My parents didn’t encourage me to go into politics at all,” he told Hyphen magazine in 2011. “There was a stereotype in the Chinese community that sees politics with suspicion. Politicians aren’t honorable, they’re corrupt and unsavory.”

Some members of the public have expressed disappointment over his conviction, but many more think the five-year sentence is fair (if not too light) for someone who has admitted to abusing his position.

There is also a portion of the San Francisco community that couldn’t be less surprised.

While Yee maintained a clean-cut image on the surface, those who followed his career closely — and opposed him politically — have viewed him as a contradictory figure from the start.

He was never someone who could be trusted, they say. The signs of corruption have been there all along, and whispers about his beguiling character were part of why he came fifth in the 2011 mayoral election.

Yee was born in China’s southern Guandong province during Mao Zedong’s Communist takeover. Yee’s father was a storeowner who served in the U.S. Army during world War II, and the family fled to San Francisco Chinatown when Yee was three years old.

For the first four years, the San Francisco Bay Guardian reported, Yee lived with his sister and mother in a one-room apartment while his father sailed for the Merchant Marine. The community was tight-knit and insular.

“The movie theater, the shoe store, the barber shop, food — everything you needed you could get in Chinatown,” Yee told the Guardian. “You never had to leave.”

He eventually did leave, to go to college at UC Berkeley, then get a masters San Francisco State University and a Ph.D in child psychology at the University of Hawaii.

When he returned to Hawaii on a trip in 1992, Yee had his first little-known run-in with the law. According to the Hawaii Reporter, Yee was arrested that year for allegedly stuffing a bottle of Tropical Blend Tan Magnifier Oil into his pocket and walking out of the store.

Yee skipped his court appearance and the case was dismissed.

The incident was minor, to be sure. But it represented one of many minor transgressions which pointed to something potentially more insidious. As SF Weekly wrote in a 2011 cover story, “beneath that do-gooder veneer lurks a long history of apparent ethical lapses. During a generation in public life, Yee has become expert at talking himself out of trouble.”

Former employees at Asian Americans for Community Involvement, for which Yee was an administrator, told SF Weekly that he once used a bottle of Wite-Out to revise the medical records of the nonprofit’s beneficiaries to make their conditions seem more severe.

Another time, while serving on the city school board, Yee reportedly registered his children under a fake address so they could attend a better school.

While he was running for mayor, rallies for his opponent and current mayor Ed Lee doubled as opportunities to speak out against him, the Guardian reported. Despite his Chinatown roots, he lacked the Chinese American support that Lee enjoyed.

Rose Pak, a “Chinatown powerbroker,” told the Guardian that Yee had “no moral character.” She rattled off a list of her (unconfirmed) suspicions — “How did the guy manage to buy a million-dollar house on a $30,000 City Hall salary?” — but the gist was clear: Pak didn’t trust him.

In the words of the Guardian’s Tim Redmond, Yee was a “political puzzle”:

He’s grown, changed and developed his positions over time. Or he’s become an expert at political pandering, telling every group exactly what it wants to hear. He’s the best chance progressives have of keeping the corrupt old political machine out of City Hall — or he’s a chameleon who will be a nightmare for progressive San Francisco.

Four years later, the camouflage has been stripped away.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-trafficking/

[Jolie Rouge]