10 Saturday Mar 2018
Posted in Government, Liberty, Progressives war on America, Veterans
Wake up, America. It appears that we are getting played as bureaucrats plot to flush our liberties down the toilet. The government is not our friend.
FK – What, you mean the republicrats and Trump aren’t saving us?
[…]
24 Friday Jun 2016
Posted in Election 2016
Calling out Progressives and their fake arse dog and pony shows. H/t Gretchen Logue.
What kind of sit-in has bathroom breaks and catered food? A Democrat one… It’s always the taxpayer’s dimes funding Democrat protests. This is a fully catered “sit in”.
Continue Reading — What kind of sit-in has bathroom breaks and catered food?
👶🏼👶🏼 SORRY LGBTQ👶🏼👶🏼
We must use your tragedy on issues that bring us more money & votes. #LoveIsLove #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/epgxktAV8n— MAGS-4-TRUMP2016 (@magnifier661) June 24, 2016
The idiotic Democrat “gun control” sit-in was more about eggrolls and less about bullets.#NoBillNoBreak https://t.co/a0K1FVTupl
— Ames (@VivaLaAmes) June 24, 2016
“If this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this?” https://t.co/uYBUIxfNoW #NoBillNoBreak
— PJ Media (@PJMedia_com) June 24, 2016
What happened to the #NoBillNoBreak , #DemocraticSitIn ?
You mean you can’t get your way by sitting in the floor like a petulant toddler?!
— Leah the Boss (@LeahRBoss) June 24, 2016
#NoBillNoBreak was a fundraising scheme?@TheDemocrats are literally trying to profit from #OrlandoShooting. https://t.co/1xLiDQUAL4
— Bob Owens (@bob_owens) June 23, 2016
Shame on the Congressional Communist brigade for their attempts to fundamentally transform the 2016 presidential election into a Civil Rights movement. And shame on the members of the Communist Black Caucus who marched alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
17 Friday Jun 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
Conservative Review by John Gray
If we are going to have a national conversation about guns, can we at least get the facts right?
The loss of life is always tragic. Perhaps it’s even more tragic when it happens in such a gruesome and heinous way as it did Orlando last Saturday. The loss of 49 innocent American lives, and the debate that follows, shouldn’t be diminished by the nature of the killings, whether it happened by gun or bomb, nor by whom – terrorist or citizen.
This is a sad and serious tragedy, and America deserves a fair and honest debate.
We must debate why America’s law enforcement (FBI) failed, again, to stop a terrorist they were investigating.
We must debate Democrats who believe this act is another excuse to limit the civil liberties and freedoms of Americans….
20 Saturday Feb 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
≈ Comments Off on The Ethics of Armed Self Defense
“Shehid Jîn” battalion of mothers in Kobane, Syria. Photo: HAWAR News/teleSUR
Those bureaucrats working feverishly to deprive us of our second amendment liberties have armed security forces to protect them and their loved ones as do Hollywood celebrities pushing the same meme.
For those who do not have armed security, are willing to part with their firearms and/or deprive others of theirs:
How much do you value your life?
Modern America has a strong pacifist streak that originated among some of our Christian denominations and spread to non-religious people, most notably during the 1960s. It is now associated with the liberal side of the political spectrum and with those who support strict gun control.
It is easy to find people who say they would never use potentially lethal force against another person, even to save their own lives from a criminal assault. Under this principle, the life of a violent sociopath is more valuable than theirs. Each person has the right to place a value on their own life, so it may seem difficult to argue against this way of thinking. But let’s pose some serious questions and see where this line of reasoning takes us.
Do you have an obligation to your loved ones?
If you won’t save your own life by using lethal force, what about your spouse, children or co-workers? If you allow yourself to be killed by a violent attacker, what…
30 Saturday Jan 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
≈ Comments Off on The Ultimate Goal of the Anti-gun Movement
Screenshot – Australia Gun Confiscation
Originally published by AmmoLand.com.
New York, NY – The ultimate goal of the anti-gun movement is this: the universal elimination of civilian firearms’ ownership and possession.
This is true and incontrovertible. Everything the anti-gun movement does is directed to the attainment of that goal. Nothing the anti-gun movement does diverges from the path to that goal. When asked to admit the truth of the assertion, the antigun movement, and its sounding board, the mainstream corporate media, will deny it, curtly and vehemently.
But, the anti-gun movement’s actions belie its blunt denial.
Realization of the movement’s goal amounts to de facto repeal of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms – a right expressed clearly and cogently, succinctly and indelibly, in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“Yet, if there exist any residual doubt as to the import of that right, the U.S. Supreme Court laid such doubt to rest in the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions.”
In Heller the Supreme Court held;
“the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” This right, the high Court maintains, operates as a constraint on the federal government. The question subsequently arose, in McDonald, whether the Heller holding applies to the States as well. The high Court held that it did, asserting, clearly, categorically, unequivocally, “the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.”
Still, the anti-gun organizations, and many lower courts amenable to their views, resist Heller and McDonald, and continue to advance strategies altogether inconsistent with the High Court’s holdings. The arguments – actually rationalizations – for more and more restrictive gun measures may be distilled to the following: one, no one needs a gun because the police will protect you; two, curtailing civilian gun ownership precludes gun violence and gun accidents; three, civilized people don’t want guns and are repulsed by them; four, since no one can know who, among the population, will go off “half-cocked” – presenting a danger to self or others – it is best to curtail civilian gun ownership and possession; five, the Second Amendment is obsolete; no other Country has anything like it, and the U.S. shouldn’t either. These five arguments are a ragbag of elements gleaned from utilitarian ethics, psychology, sociology, politics, economics, and even aesthetics. But they all embrace one central tenet: governmental control of the American public.
The anti-gun movement does not recognize the sanctity and autonomy of the individual, which is the linchpin of the Bill of Rights. Rather, the anti-gun movement sees each individual American as a random bit of unharmonious energy, running hither and yon – an individual who is likely to harm self or others unless appropriately constrained for his or her own good and for the good of the greater society. A firearm in the hands of a civilian lessens government’s ability to control that individual. Ergo, the government must keep the two – firearm and individual – separated[…]
Continue Reading — The Ultimate Goal of the Antigun Movement
15 Friday Jan 2016
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
anti-police, Barack Obama's bedfellows, gun-control, lunacy, Marxism, Nebraskans against Gun Violence, nra
Amanda Gailey (Image source: University of Nebraska-Lincoln website)
Today’s dog whistle, “the discourse.”
TheBlaze by Dave Urbanski
In late December, a gun-control activist apparently posted an F-word-laden rant directed at the NRA, lawmakers and police — and about a week later seemingly the same person was invited by the White House to meet President Barack Obama.
A Facebook page appearing to belong to Amanda Gailey lists her as director of Nebraskans Against Gun Violence and associate professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. On Dec. 28, the following was posted on the Facebook page (profanities redacted):
KETV-TV reported that the White House last week called Gailey to personally invite her to meet Obama as part of his speech in Lincoln Wednesday.
That station added that nine other members of Nebraskans Against Gun Violence were slated to attend the event as well[…]
Apparently, the above article has hit a nerve, primarily Progressive anti-gun activist, Amanda Gailey’s.
Gailey posted the following response on her Facebook page Thursday afternoon denying that her rant was anti-police and accusing the author of giving the above article a “click-bait title that not only mischaracterizes what I wrote in a Facebook post, but also ascribes an opinion to me that I do not hold….”
PUMABydesign001's Blog 