By Jonathan E.P. Moore
GUN CONTROL,THE NEW MCCARTHYISM?
GUN VIOLENCE IN US HAS FALLEN DRAMATICALLY OVER PAST 20 YEARS, JUSTICE DEPT. REPORT FINDS!
SO WHY IS OBAMA AND HILLARY BACK ON THEIR SOAPBOX AND SO FOCUSED ON GUN CONTROL??
Gun violence in America has fallen dramatically over the
past two decades, and the number of murders committed with a firearm is down
too, though guns are still by far the leading type of crime weapon, according
to a new report from the Justice Department.
As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop.
Murders committed with a gun dropped 39 percent to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993, according to the report.
Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply — from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Around 70 percent of murders were committed with a firearm, and of those, the vast majority involved a handgun -- fluctuating between 70-80 percent.
The report is strictly factual and offers no analysis about
the reasons for the decline in gun violence. I THINK I KNOW WHY, AND SO SHOULD YOU!!
Number #4 on Alinsky’s list of how to destroy America from within through Socialism!!
4) GUN CONTROL: Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
You have to know that Obama, like he has done in the past, is telegraphing his next move, and with less than a year to go, you know he has his foot on the gas. .... like, ISIS is Contained, a JV Team, that’s not who America is, and I could throw in the IRS, EPA, and about the border patrol that was told not to enforce the Immigration Laws, and Holder/Lynch carrying out his Illegal and unconstitutional orders. If the GOP doesn’t do anything to stop him, he is going to continue, and if they don’t stop him, then we all know they are working together, like they did when the budget was passed, and the Dems got everything Obama wanted…. the GOP said they did that because of the trade rules on gas lifted was the cause, but do you really want to believe that…. a joke in my book!!! .....I could go on, but what this is doing now is waking up the American people to go out and purchase guns before Obamaism, like McCarthyism, that accused people of being communists back in the good old days, and Obamaism now with this gun control and the rider about the mentally ill, etc. being added to a list of people who are unable to get guns, you have to wonder and ask yourself, are political parties who don't believe in his agenda going to be considered mentally unstable and therefore put on a list of people who can't buy guns....Interesting concept!!…..Hmmm…Just a little food for thought....??
Seven years ago, when Hillary Clinton was fighting a
grueling Democratic primary battle against then-Sen. Barack Obama, she boasted
of duck hunting and championed the Second Amendment. Clinton’s campaign in
Indiana sent around negative mailers pasted with rifles, accusing Obama of
being weak on gun rights. She talked of learning to shoot a gun as a child.
“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” Clinton said in April 2008. “It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are.”
That year, she went on to overwhelmingly win states in the Democratic primary with rural whites, from Pennsylvania to Kentucky and West Virginia. Today, Clinton’s calculus has changed. She has come out this campaign in favor of gun control measures with a vigor that surprised even some Democrats, targeting minorities and urban voters. Without contradicting any of her policy positions from 2008, Clinton is helping shape the national debate about firearms, calling for a “national movement” to “stand up to the NRA” and lambasting Republicans for voting against gun control legislation. “What is wrong with us, that we cannot stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby, and the gun manufacturers they represent?” a visibly angry Clinton said shortly after the Oregon shooting last month that left 10 people dead. “This is not just tragic. We don’t just need to pray for people. We need to act and we need to build a movement. It’s infuriating.”
The change in Clinton’s approach to guns comes as the
Democratic Party at large has shifted. A spate of mass shootings has reinvigorated
liberals who support strengthening gun laws, while wealthy backers have pledged
money to help fend off negative ads. While the NRA and conservative groups have
lambasted her, Democratic strategists believe that Clinton’s embrace of gun
control is a savvy political move.
According to data collected by the National Rifle Association, at least 12.8 million people have concealed carry permits, and the total number of Americans who carry a gun with them is likely much higher. It is a dramatic increase from previous elections, and it reflects an ever-larger and more-committed slice of the electorate that view guns as a top issue. Organizers say these voters have a strong attachment to guns and will overwhelmingly oppose Clinton at the polls.
“She thinks she is just insulting people in upstate New York and Montana but she doesn’t understand it’s a personal thing,” said conservative organizer Grover Norquist. “If you’re a guy who carries a gun around with him it’s a part of you. And she doesn’t know that.”
Regardless, Clinton has shown no signs of slowing her charge. If some committed gun toters of 2008 no longer support Clinton, that’s because she is no longer talking to them.
BYE-BYE SECOND AMENDMENT?
Now that the Obama Administration has two wins under their belt with the recent Supreme Court decisions on ObamaCare and Gay Marriage, look for the president and his allies in the Democrat Party and the anti-gun activists to be emboldened, and attempt to capitalize on the Court’s willingness to legislate from the bench.
Barack Obama and his party have made no secret of their desire to enact strict gun control legislation in America. Their efforts have been rebuffed so far by the American people and the Republican legislature. But that hasn’t stopped them from plotting any number of ways to try to restrict gun ownership through regulatory, procedural, or executive actions.
THOSE EFFORTS ARE BOUND TO CONTINUE, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT APPEARS TO BE OPEN TO REACHING DECISIONS BASED ON POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PUBLIC PRESSURE, AS OPPOSED TO BASING THEIR DECISIONS SOLELY ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
What does all this mean for the millions of responsible gun owners in America? It could mean the eventual confiscation of entire classes of weapons by the federal government. But at least initially it will probably be subtler, the first step of a slippery slope towards the outlawing of private gun ownership in the United States.
Initially there will probably be regulatory steps
implemented to restrict certain types of ammunition purchases, adding excessive
amounts of taxes to various calibers or types of ammo so that it becomes
cost-prohibitive to buy. You can’t target shoot with an AK-47 if the ammunition
is so expensive that you can’t afford to buy it. The same goes for all the
other so-called “assault weapons”.
Outlawing large capacity magazines has also been on the menu for Democrats, something they have been screaming about since the Newtown tragedy, if not before. Effectively turning a semi-automatic rifle into a single shot musket if they can accomplish it. No need for a thirty round magazine to go deer hunting has been their battle cry on this issue.
A federal gun registry through the use of comprehensive background investigations is another thing that Democrats have been after. And what would be the next step following that? Prohibiting sales to people who they feel through the background investigation do not meet the criteria that they themselves subjectively establish for who can own a gun?
Included among those might even be the very military and combat veterans who put their lives on the line every day protecting the Constitution itself, and the very Second Amendment giving Americans the right to own guns.
But why stop there one might ask. Haven’t the Democrats and their anti-gun puppet-masters continued the argument that the actual wording of the Second Amendment specifically reads a “well-regulated militia”, meaning National Guard or federal troops under the control of the government? Not individual American citizens. Back in 2008 then candidate Barack Obama called for a “civilian national security force”, and proposed that it be as big as all of the nation’s military branches.
With Obama’s trusted advisor Al Sharpton recently calling for the nationalization of the country’s police force, it should send shudders down the spine of all freedom-loving Americans. The very thing those thirty round magazines mentioned earlier were designed to protect us against, a corrupt government intent on taking Americans freedoms away.
It seems to me that the two recent rulings by the Supreme
Court have not only decided the two issues that were before them, but may very
well have set the stage for an unprecedented coming gun-grab by the Obama
Administration and the Democrats, and the potential loss of freedom for all
Americans.
JUDGE GARLAND AND THE LEFT'S DISDAIN FOR TRUTH? YOU DECIDE!!
The mainstream media — that is, the liberal media — share all the views and characteristics of the left. Among these is the left’s view of truth. There are honest individuals with left-wing views, and dishonest individuals on the right. But truth is not a leftist value. Everything the left believes in is more important than truth: social justice, economic equality, reducing carbon emissions, expanding the power of the state, battling sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and above all of these, destroying its conservative opposition.
The media’s coverage of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court should serve as one of the most blatant examples of both the left-wing orientation of the news media and their willingness to play with truth.
On March 16, the day after Garland’s nomination, every major mainstream news outlet, both print and electronic, depicted the judge as a centrist.
The first sentence of The New York Times front page read: “WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland to be the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appellate judge.”
Similarly, the Los Angeles Times front-page headline said:
“Obama’s choice of popular centrist Merrick Garland for Supreme Court puts GOP
to the test.”
Another headline, seen in the Washington Post, read: “Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot.” That same day, the Post published a second article mentioning how “Garland’s deep resume and centrist reputation appear to have positioned him well to earn the president’s nod.”
Two days later, the Los Angeles Times featured a news analysis on its front page, in which a reporter wrote that Garland may actually be “the most moderate Supreme Court nominee anyone could expect from a Democratic president.” The reporter also calls Garland “a superbly qualified judge with a cautious, centrist record.”
There is no truth to any of these reports — something easily proved by both Judge Garland’s decisions and, amazingly, by the newspapers’ reports themselves.
Take the Los Angeles Times’ front-page “news analysis,” for example. After describing the judge as a moderate and centrist, the LA Times reporter writes:
“If the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, is replaced by a moderate-to-liberal Justice Garland, the court would tip to the left on several key issues, like abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, gun control, campaign spending, immigration and environmental protection.”
In other words, the very same author who describes Garland
as a centrist believes that Garland votes left on essentially every major issue
confronting the nation and the Supreme Court.
Additionally, that very same day The New York Times headlined that Garland is a centrist, it published an article on the nomination noting that “If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.”
In reviewing Garland’s decisions, this Times piece placed Judge Garland to the left of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, way to the left of Justice Stephen Breyer and minimally to the right of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
By their own accounts, the liberal media lied in describing Garland as a centrist. And the more research one does, the bigger this lie appears.
In a column in The Wall Street Journal, Juanita Duggan, President and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, wrote that Garland is so anti-small business and so pro-big labor, that “This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year-history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee.”
What worries the NFIB, she explains, is that “in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board).”
Elsewhere in the Journal, the editorial board wrote that they can’t think of a single issue on which Garland would vote differently from the four liberal Justices that already sit on the bench.
Tom Goldstein wrote in the SCOTUSblog that Garland favors deferring to the decision-makers in agencies. “In a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.”
Another source reads that “Judge Garland would be a reliable fifth vote on all of these legal issues.”
Those are all the fundamental issues that divide the left from the right.
So, the entire left is lying about Judge Garland, who, for the record, seems like a truly decent man who possesses a first-class mind. They do so because getting a fifth left-wing vote and weakening the Republicans is far more important than truth.
And believe it or not, there is an even worse lesson here,
namely the media’s effectiveness in saturating society with its mendacious
version of reality. Unless an American makes the effort to study the issue —
and most do not — they take the news media’s version as truth. The terrible
lesson, which has been affirmed time and time again since the 1960s, is that a
free society can experience brainwashing as effectively as a totalitarian
state.
GUN CONTROL,THE NEW MCCARTHYISM?
GUN VIOLENCE IN US HAS FALLEN DRAMATICALLY OVER PAST 20 YEARS, JUSTICE DEPT. REPORT FINDS!
SO WHY IS OBAMA AND HILLARY BACK ON THEIR SOAPBOX AND SO FOCUSED ON GUN CONTROL??
As for where crime guns came from, the study notes that less than two percent of convicted inmates reported buying their weapons at gun shows or flea markets. The highest number, 40 percent, said the guns came from a family member or a friend. About 37 percent said the weapons were stolen or obtained from an illegal source. The rest say the guns were bought at a retail store or pawn shop.
Murders committed with a gun dropped 39 percent to 11,101 in 2011, from a high of 18,253 in 1993, according to the report.
Other crimes committed with guns were down even more sharply — from 1.53 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a drop of 70 percent, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Around 70 percent of murders were committed with a firearm, and of those, the vast majority involved a handgun -- fluctuating between 70-80 percent.
Number #4 on Alinsky’s list of how to destroy America from within through Socialism!!
4) GUN CONTROL: Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
You have to know that Obama, like he has done in the past, is telegraphing his next move, and with less than a year to go, you know he has his foot on the gas. .... like, ISIS is Contained, a JV Team, that’s not who America is, and I could throw in the IRS, EPA, and about the border patrol that was told not to enforce the Immigration Laws, and Holder/Lynch carrying out his Illegal and unconstitutional orders. If the GOP doesn’t do anything to stop him, he is going to continue, and if they don’t stop him, then we all know they are working together, like they did when the budget was passed, and the Dems got everything Obama wanted…. the GOP said they did that because of the trade rules on gas lifted was the cause, but do you really want to believe that…. a joke in my book!!! .....I could go on, but what this is doing now is waking up the American people to go out and purchase guns before Obamaism, like McCarthyism, that accused people of being communists back in the good old days, and Obamaism now with this gun control and the rider about the mentally ill, etc. being added to a list of people who are unable to get guns, you have to wonder and ask yourself, are political parties who don't believe in his agenda going to be considered mentally unstable and therefore put on a list of people who can't buy guns....Interesting concept!!…..Hmmm…Just a little food for thought....??
“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” Clinton said in April 2008. “It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are.”
That year, she went on to overwhelmingly win states in the Democratic primary with rural whites, from Pennsylvania to Kentucky and West Virginia. Today, Clinton’s calculus has changed. She has come out this campaign in favor of gun control measures with a vigor that surprised even some Democrats, targeting minorities and urban voters. Without contradicting any of her policy positions from 2008, Clinton is helping shape the national debate about firearms, calling for a “national movement” to “stand up to the NRA” and lambasting Republicans for voting against gun control legislation. “What is wrong with us, that we cannot stand up to the NRA and the gun lobby, and the gun manufacturers they represent?” a visibly angry Clinton said shortly after the Oregon shooting last month that left 10 people dead. “This is not just tragic. We don’t just need to pray for people. We need to act and we need to build a movement. It’s infuriating.”
According to data collected by the National Rifle Association, at least 12.8 million people have concealed carry permits, and the total number of Americans who carry a gun with them is likely much higher. It is a dramatic increase from previous elections, and it reflects an ever-larger and more-committed slice of the electorate that view guns as a top issue. Organizers say these voters have a strong attachment to guns and will overwhelmingly oppose Clinton at the polls.
“She thinks she is just insulting people in upstate New York and Montana but she doesn’t understand it’s a personal thing,” said conservative organizer Grover Norquist. “If you’re a guy who carries a gun around with him it’s a part of you. And she doesn’t know that.”
Regardless, Clinton has shown no signs of slowing her charge. If some committed gun toters of 2008 no longer support Clinton, that’s because she is no longer talking to them.
Now that the Obama Administration has two wins under their belt with the recent Supreme Court decisions on ObamaCare and Gay Marriage, look for the president and his allies in the Democrat Party and the anti-gun activists to be emboldened, and attempt to capitalize on the Court’s willingness to legislate from the bench.
Barack Obama and his party have made no secret of their desire to enact strict gun control legislation in America. Their efforts have been rebuffed so far by the American people and the Republican legislature. But that hasn’t stopped them from plotting any number of ways to try to restrict gun ownership through regulatory, procedural, or executive actions.
THOSE EFFORTS ARE BOUND TO CONTINUE, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT APPEARS TO BE OPEN TO REACHING DECISIONS BASED ON POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PUBLIC PRESSURE, AS OPPOSED TO BASING THEIR DECISIONS SOLELY ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
What does all this mean for the millions of responsible gun owners in America? It could mean the eventual confiscation of entire classes of weapons by the federal government. But at least initially it will probably be subtler, the first step of a slippery slope towards the outlawing of private gun ownership in the United States.
Outlawing large capacity magazines has also been on the menu for Democrats, something they have been screaming about since the Newtown tragedy, if not before. Effectively turning a semi-automatic rifle into a single shot musket if they can accomplish it. No need for a thirty round magazine to go deer hunting has been their battle cry on this issue.
A federal gun registry through the use of comprehensive background investigations is another thing that Democrats have been after. And what would be the next step following that? Prohibiting sales to people who they feel through the background investigation do not meet the criteria that they themselves subjectively establish for who can own a gun?
Included among those might even be the very military and combat veterans who put their lives on the line every day protecting the Constitution itself, and the very Second Amendment giving Americans the right to own guns.
But why stop there one might ask. Haven’t the Democrats and their anti-gun puppet-masters continued the argument that the actual wording of the Second Amendment specifically reads a “well-regulated militia”, meaning National Guard or federal troops under the control of the government? Not individual American citizens. Back in 2008 then candidate Barack Obama called for a “civilian national security force”, and proposed that it be as big as all of the nation’s military branches.
With Obama’s trusted advisor Al Sharpton recently calling for the nationalization of the country’s police force, it should send shudders down the spine of all freedom-loving Americans. The very thing those thirty round magazines mentioned earlier were designed to protect us against, a corrupt government intent on taking Americans freedoms away.
JUDGE GARLAND AND THE LEFT'S DISDAIN FOR TRUTH? YOU DECIDE!!
The mainstream media — that is, the liberal media — share all the views and characteristics of the left. Among these is the left’s view of truth. There are honest individuals with left-wing views, and dishonest individuals on the right. But truth is not a leftist value. Everything the left believes in is more important than truth: social justice, economic equality, reducing carbon emissions, expanding the power of the state, battling sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and above all of these, destroying its conservative opposition.
The media’s coverage of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court should serve as one of the most blatant examples of both the left-wing orientation of the news media and their willingness to play with truth.
On March 16, the day after Garland’s nomination, every major mainstream news outlet, both print and electronic, depicted the judge as a centrist.
The first sentence of The New York Times front page read: “WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland to be the nation’s 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appellate judge.”
Another headline, seen in the Washington Post, read: “Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot.” That same day, the Post published a second article mentioning how “Garland’s deep resume and centrist reputation appear to have positioned him well to earn the president’s nod.”
Two days later, the Los Angeles Times featured a news analysis on its front page, in which a reporter wrote that Garland may actually be “the most moderate Supreme Court nominee anyone could expect from a Democratic president.” The reporter also calls Garland “a superbly qualified judge with a cautious, centrist record.”
There is no truth to any of these reports — something easily proved by both Judge Garland’s decisions and, amazingly, by the newspapers’ reports themselves.
Take the Los Angeles Times’ front-page “news analysis,” for example. After describing the judge as a moderate and centrist, the LA Times reporter writes:
“If the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, is replaced by a moderate-to-liberal Justice Garland, the court would tip to the left on several key issues, like abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, gun control, campaign spending, immigration and environmental protection.”
Additionally, that very same day The New York Times headlined that Garland is a centrist, it published an article on the nomination noting that “If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.”
In reviewing Garland’s decisions, this Times piece placed Judge Garland to the left of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, way to the left of Justice Stephen Breyer and minimally to the right of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
By their own accounts, the liberal media lied in describing Garland as a centrist. And the more research one does, the bigger this lie appears.
In a column in The Wall Street Journal, Juanita Duggan, President and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, wrote that Garland is so anti-small business and so pro-big labor, that “This is the first time in the NFIB’s 73-year-history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee.”
What worries the NFIB, she explains, is that “in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland’s that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board).”
Elsewhere in the Journal, the editorial board wrote that they can’t think of a single issue on which Garland would vote differently from the four liberal Justices that already sit on the bench.
Tom Goldstein wrote in the SCOTUSblog that Garland favors deferring to the decision-makers in agencies. “In a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time.”
Another source reads that “Judge Garland would be a reliable fifth vote on all of these legal issues.”
Those are all the fundamental issues that divide the left from the right.
So, the entire left is lying about Judge Garland, who, for the record, seems like a truly decent man who possesses a first-class mind. They do so because getting a fifth left-wing vote and weakening the Republicans is far more important than truth.
Jonathan E P Moore ‘While You Were Sleeping’
THE NEXT ‘While You Were Sleeping’
Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
No comments:
Post a Comment