Connect with us

Guns and Crime

NAACP president says government should seize guns to protect civil rights

Published

on

As I wrote yesterday following passage of an anti-Second Amendment gun-control bill by the Florida State Senate, there is a growing acceptance by our political overlords to not only create enormous obstacles for Americans wanting to buy a gun but to also come up with ways to seize guns from those who already own them.

While liberals repeat the feel-good mantra that gun seizures are necessary “for the children,” NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson believes that there’s another reason to seize them—protecting “civil rights” for “communities of color.”

In a recent opinion piece for BlackPressUSA.com calling for “sane, sensible laws to help eliminate or at least decrease the damage and death caused by gun violence,” Johnson rattled off the classic laundry list of liberal gun-control talking points:

  • Universal background checks on sales and transfers.
  • Banning military-style, semi-automatic assault guns.
  • Tough, new penalties for straw purchasers and gun traffickers.
  • Using the CDC to research gun violence as a public health issue.

Johnson then shoots down—pardon the pun—critics who might consider such government intervention “naively ambitious” by pointing out that “comprehensive, sustainable gun control is achievable” because Australia has done it.

Unfortunately for Mr. Johnson, his Australia example exposes the true motivation of anti-gun radicals. It’s not about the children or civil rights. It’s not even about “sensible” gun control. It’s about mandatory gun confiscation.

Following a mass shooting in 1996, the Australian government outlawed most guns and implemented a national gun registry. However, the pinnacle of their gun-control scheme was the implementation of a massive gun buy-back program where the government purchased up to one million guns financed by a special tax created for that purpose.

But as I said earlier, this isn’t about gun control.

Australia’s buy-back program was mandatory and a sweeping approach to gun confiscation. This compulsory program was paramount to gun-control efforts in the land down under. In a National Review article written in 2014 in response to Obama’s praise of Australia’s gun confiscation program, Charles Cook points out how the left conveniently leaves this little tidbit of information out of the debate to hide their true intentions.

“You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.”

Still, calling American individualism a “fetish-like obsession,” Johnson hails Australia’s “gun-control intervention” as an example of unity in favor of national safety and progress.

Unfortunately, Donald Trump wants to seize guns without due process, and Republicans in Congress are embracing gun-control because they are more concerned about protecting their jobs in November than they are about the Constitution, so we could be closer to adopting Australia’s gun laws than we realize.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Torcer

    March 8, 2018 at 2:32 pm

    Who had the NAACP as the final square on their Gun Confiscation Bingo card?

    You won the game if so…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Guns and Crime

Trust in Chicago area police was already low. Then they killed Jemel Roberson.

Published

on

Trust in Chicago area police was already low Then they killed Jemel Roberson

An armed security guard prevented anyone from getting killed when gunmen returned to his bar after getting thrown out. He subdued them without using deadly force and was restraining one of the alleged assailants when police arrived. That’s when a resolved situation turned ugly.

A Midlothian police officer shot and killed Jemel Roberson, 26, while responding to a shooting inside Manny’s Blue Room Bar in Robbins, Illinois, about 4 a.m. Sunday. Roberson was pronounced dead at the scene.

This appears to be a case of a truly decent person doing his job and losing his life as a result.

Security guard killed by police in Robbins bar wanted to be a cop, friends say

https://wgntv.com/2018/11/12/officer-responds-to-gunfire-fatally-shoots-security-guard-at-robbins-bar/Friends said Roberson was an upstanding guy who had plans to become a police officer. He was also a musician, playing keyboard and drums at several Chicago-area churches.

“Every artist he’s ever played for, every musician he’s ever sat beside, we’re all just broken because we have no answers,” the Rev. Patricia Hill from Purposed Church said. “He was getting ready to train and do all that stuff, so the very people he wanted to be family with, took his life.”

“Once again, it’s the continued narrative that we see of shoot first, ask questions later,” the Rev. LeAundre Hill said.

My Take

Chicago area residents have had many reasons to not trust the men and women charged with keeping them safe. Controversial police-involved shootings, rising crime rates, and tone deaf leadership in city, county, and state governments have been pushing people in the area to give up on law enforcement.

This will make matters much worse.

The optics on this couldn’t get much uglier, especially if the unnamed police officer who shot Roberson turns out to be Caucasian. Roberson, an African-American, was able to detain four assailants without anyone getting fatally wounded. The fact that he was then fatally shot by police adds a new dimension to the rift between police and the people.

In most incidents where police are believed to have used deadly force unnecessarily, it’s a matter of them shooting an alleged criminal when other means of subduing them could have been used. Such is the case with Jason Van Dyke who fatally shot Laquan McDonald. Nobody argued that McDonald wasn’t dangerous. He was high on PCP, had a knife, and was walking in the middle of the street despite police warnings for him to drop the weapon and get on the ground.

Roberson’s situation is the opposite. He was doing his duty as a security guard and very likely saved lives in the process. His death is almost certainly going to start another round of racial tensions and anti-police protests that could cause tremendous turmoil throughout the Chicagoland area.

There is usual gray area in police shootings, but this seems pretty black and white to me. Jemel Roberson acted heroically. Instead of a happy ending for the day and a bright future in law enforcement ahead, he’s gone.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Intellectual ammunition: Mythology vs Facts of ‘gun control’

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition Mythology vs Facts of gun control

This multipart series eviscerates some of the Left’s biggest lies and fallacies of Liberty Control

In the first of a new multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

He begins demolishing the myth that increased Liberty control results in lower violent crime rates.

Places with strict controls on freedom with high crime rates – that the Left doesn’t like to talk about – that are prima facie indicators of this absurd fallacy.

Worse yet, laws that are supposed to keep people safe have the opposite effect, since they only serve to disarm the innocent to the advantage of criminals and the government. The edged weapon attacks in China show that it’s not an issue of issue of guns nor one confined to the states. Or the attack in Crimea or the recent tragedy in a state with the strictest Liberty control around.

He cites the specific case of the mythology that gun confiscation ‘solved’ the problem of gun violence in Australia or the UK:

As I noted for MRCTV in February of 2018, contrary to the claims of pop media swamis, violent crime actually increased in Australia for three years following its vaunted 1996 gun “ban” and mandatory “buy-back”. This spike included an increase in gun-related violent crime, and the violent crime did not return to 1996 levels until more than ten years later, when many civilians had resorted to the black market to rearm themselves.

And, as I observed in the same article, violent crime, including homicides and gun-related violent crime, increased in the UK following its government “banning” most firearms in 1997.

Further on in the video and the accompanying article he also destroys the fallacy that Prohibition Works.

This is simple. As the experience of the United States during the “Prohibition Era” has shown, statutes don’t stop people from obtaining the things they demand. I teach economics, and this is an economic axiom. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that if the zones of “prohibition” are widened beyond the crime-ridden-yet-gun-banning cities like Chicago and DC, and applied to all of the US this will stop criminally minded people from obtaining firearms. Prohibition doesn’t work.

But this does not stop gun-grabbers from pushing their proposals, or even misreading the US Constitution to justify their threats to curtail your inherent right to self-defense.

Knowing the propaganda methods of the Left, if there were a real location where their ideas actually worked instead of endangering people, they would tout this ‘gun-free’ domain 24/7. We shall call this mythical realm: ‘Unitopia’ from the combination of the words ‘Unicorn’ and ‘Utopia’, which literally means ‘no place’.

If it truly existed, ‘Unitopia’ would feature broadcast studio’s for every major media source so they could talk about it 24/7. One can easily envision a video feed with the announcer intoning ‘We now go to our anchor in Unitopia – the one place that gun control has kept people safe – to discuss the news on…’. It would be the go-to locale for the discussion of Liberty and self-defense.

Part 2 Will discuss the Constitution and Founders. Their words on the common sense human right of self-defense, as well as detailing the point that only individuals can have rights.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Nancy Pelosi’s anti-gun agenda is supported by Trump and the GOP

Published

on

Nancy Pelosis anti-gun agenda is supported by Trump and the GOP

As the Democrats prepare to take control of the House from their #UNIBROW counterparts on the Republican side of the aisle, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who plans to make another run to become Speaker of the House, has begun laying out some of her priorities.

Unfortunately, she will likely be successful because many of Pelosi’s priorities are the same priorities Trump and the GOP have been promoting over the past two years.

We already know that Pelosi considers last week’s victory a mandate to save Obamacare and Medicare and that Trump is already on board with doing the same. Now, in the aftermath of the recent shooting at a California bar, Pelosi announced that she will make gun control a top priority for the new Congress.

Trump and the GOP have had gun control on their radar over the past two years, but it began picking up speed in 2018 after they joined forces with the Democrats on the issue.

Based on his endorsement of Pelosi for Speaker, and his anti-Second Amendment track record, Trump will likely work with her to build a bipartisan brood of blockheads bent on blowing up the Bill of Rights.

After the Florida shooting back in Feb. this year, Trump openly promoted a punch list of Democrat-friendly, anti-gun measures, including: raising the age to 21 to buy a rifle (a goal of Dianne Feinstein), expanding background checks (a Chuck Schumer priority), and banning bump stocks “with or without” Congress (ala Barack Obama).

In a “bipartisan” meeting held at the White House to discuss gun control after the Florida shooting, Trump responded to a suggestion from VP Pence that due process rights needed to be protected by saying that police should be able to take guns “whether they have the right, or not” and that the government should “take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Seizing guns without due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) has become standard operating procedure under a Constitution-shredding law growing in popularity across America known as the “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO). ERPOs allow people to anonymously petition the court to issue an order allowing the police to remove all firearms from people deemed to be a threat to themselves or others … by force if necessary. No warrant. No arrest. No charges.

So far, the clearly unconstitutional use of ERPOs has been limited to the states. But earlier this year, Trump’s newest BFF, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) teamed up with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to create the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Act, a law that would federalize ERPOs by giving federal courts jurisdiction over the states.

When Trump and the GOP passed an omnibus spending bill back in March, it included another bill introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) known as the Fix NICS Act. This bill gives the government power to deny gun rights to individuals for something as minor as a traffic ticket, and it laid the groundwork for the creating of an FBI database of every gun owner.

On the subject of gun databases, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) introduced the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act earlier this year, a bill that will require the federal government to establish a “searchable, computerized database” of all records pertaining to the sale, importation, production, or shipment of firearms.

While the results of Nelson’s re-election are still unknown, his opponent, ex-Governor Rick Scott is an equal threat to the Second Amendment based on his strong anti-gun position taken following the Parkland, FL, high school shooting.

Democrats in the House also introduced legislation after the Florida shooting to ban so-called assault weapons, an idea supported by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL). Equally disturbing is polling conducted at the time showing huge majorities supporting additional gun-control laws across the board, along with majority support for a complete ban of certain weapons.

What could Nancy’s “common sense” gun control look like?

Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act over the summer. This bill would prohibit gun ownership without a license and would require a valid firearms license to transfer or receive a gun. The bill would also require the US attorney general to maintain a “federal record of sale” tracking system for every gun purchase made in America.

When Republicans ran the whole show in Washington, they favored extreme gun-control measures, so any legislation Nancy comes up will probably be a Second Amendment-killing slam dunk.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report