Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Supreme Court Schadenfreude: Mainstreaming the Left’s Demands for Gun confiscation.

Published

on

While many Liberty Grabbers hailed the mainstreaming of the subject of Gun Confiscation, many others realised it was a supreme mistake to do so.

While we on the Pro-liberty, Conservative-Right fully realise that the Left’s jihad against freedom is deadly serious.  However, there are moments when it’s duplicity makes for what can only be described as pure schadenfreude. The Left’s increasingly shrill attacks against Liberty, with particular emphasis on the basic human right of self-defence poses a dilemma for them. On the one hand, they have to rally the troops, keeping them focused on the prize of Gun Confiscation. Meanwhile, they have to vehemently deny their obvious goal of Gun Confiscation to everyone else.

So, given the Left’s two-faced war against liberty, it was quite amusing to see the reaction to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ New York Times piece demanding a repeal of the Second Amendment.

While many a Leftist hailed another coming out of the authoritarian closet, others were not very delighted with the prospect that their Gun grabbing goal having just become mainstream. Twitter sprung to life with the subject with three camps. Most of the Liberty defending Right condemned this gross example of Leftist overreach. While the enemies of Liberty on the Left either praised or tried to downplay this outing of their final solution.

The Liberty Grabbers were all a Twitter.

Joy Reid’s twitter feed had some choice conversations unmasking the national Socialist Left’s “negotiating strategy” – accept the ‘crumbs’ of your common sense human rights or lose it all:

Joy Reid@JoyAnnReid
27 Mar 2018
Retired Justice Stevens goes there.
ShilohFoxRoslin @ShilohFoxRoslin
27 Mar 2018
No, no, this is good Joy! Tell someone they stand a chance of losing all their guns and suddenly sensible gun control seems like the best idea they’ve ever heard. That’s how I see this going 🙂 Cause, suddenly, repealing seems actually possible. wild
Joy Reid@JoyAnnReid
Replying to @ShilohFoxRoslin

27 Mar 2018
As a negotiating strategy you are absolutely right.

SophieCT@SophieInCT
Replying to @brandon_r_horan @JoyAnnReid
27 Mar 2018
Nah. We tried to compromise but they wouldn’t. Now they lose everything.

The National Socialist Media realises this was a Supreme mistake.

But it was the articles reacting to this totalitarian coming out party of the former ‘Justice’ that turned the schadenfreeude up to eleven. First up was the Washington post with the piece entitled: John Paul Stevens’s supremely unhelpful call to repeal the Second Amendment

It bluntly made the point in it’s first sentence:

One of the biggest threats to the recovery of the Democratic Party these days is overreach.

A party that was once afraid of being saddled with supporting “government-run” health care is increasingly okay with the word “liberal” and even voted in droves for a self-described socialist in 2016. And its 2020 hopefuls are leading the leftward charge.

It is also infuriating enough that a party going after Liberty by depriving people of their most basic of human rights would dare label itself with the term ‘Liberal’. But that’s a discussion for another day.

The real ‘red meat’ came later:

But rarely do we see such an unhelpful, untimely and fanciful idea as the one put forward by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens.

In a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday, Stevens calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment. The move might as well be considered an in-kind contribution to the National Rifle Association, to Republicans’ efforts to keep the House and Senate in 2018, and to President Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. In one fell swoop, Stevens has lent credence to the talking point that the left really just wants to get rid of gun ownership and reasserted the need for gun-rights supporters to prevent his ilk from ever being appointed again (with the most obvious answer being: Vote Republican).

One can almost hear the Leftists whispering “icksnay on the gun ban ray” in reaction to a demand for the destruction of ‘reasonable’ human right of self-preservation.

Then there is this other example in the same tone from NBC news whose title says it all: How calls for a Second Amendment repeal could easily backfire for gun control advocates.
The author buries this deep in the piece after copious amounts of Liberty Control propaganda:

Thus, by framing the debate in terms of absolute repeal, Justice Stevens’s Times piece may therefore have the complete opposite of its intended effect — implying that common-sense reform proposals wouldn’t be constitutional today and satisfying the narrative that many gun rights supporters have been using to oppose those proposals on policy grounds.

The phrase ‘No kidding’ comes to mind. The fact is we oppose their ‘common-sense reform(s)’ because they are stepping-stones to gun confiscation. The Liberty grabbers obsess over Intergalactic Background Checks because they are the precursors to registration followed by CONFISCATION. That fact should be plain to everyone.

The Takeaway

It is easy to see why the national Socialist-Left has to balance on the razor’s edge of duplicity on this subject. They at once have to deny that they are demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation.

While this is a deadly serious game they are playing, one can only laugh when they quibble amongst themselves on how to best lie about the subject. Perhaps that is why those of us on the Conservative-Right find so much enjoyment at the Left’s discomfiture. It is always supremely satisfying to see Liars caught in their web of deceit, foretelling what exactly will happen to those who cannot further their agenda without such practices.

The Biblical phase: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Has never had so much relevance.

Differential equations teaches us that one can use the initial conditions of the present to extrapolate events in the near term balanced with the knowledge of the past. The interaction of technological advances and the march of history is fascinating. History can inform those willing to listen as to what will happen in the future because the laws of human natural are as immutable as the elegant equations of Newtonian physics.

Guns and Crime

Will Elon Musk face criminal charges over his Tweet?

Published

on

Will Elon Musk face criminal charges over his Tweet

Elon Musk is in deep trouble over a Tweet. Nine little words could land him in court and possibly even in jail.

By Tweeting in the middle of the day, it’s a red flag to the SEC. The other, more important question that Musk must answer is whether or not he committed fraud by claiming he had the funds to buy the shares. He didn’t, and that alone could make his Tweet criminal.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Our List of Demands for the Conservation of Liberty – Part I

Published

on

By

Our List of Demands for the Conservation of Liberty - Part I

Leftists incessantly issue lists of demands for the restriction of Liberty. It’s time to reverse the trend towards freedom.

Every ‘serious crisis’ involving firearms sees the same pattern of exploitation by the Liberty grabber Left. They immediately mount their gun confiscation hobbyhorse issuing lists of demands for restrictions on freedom. As soon as they get these new limitations, Leftists reset the rhetoric for the next go around. The pattern has always been one of compromise on behalf of the Pro-Liberty Right, only to see new demands made whenever the Left can exploit any new crisis.

Now is the time to reverse the trend of the incessant attacks on Liberty.

Millions of innocent gun owners in the country deserve a break in seeing ever tightening restrictions on their freedom because of the actions of criminals or terrorists. There are estimated to be 150 Million innocent gun owners that have upwards of 400 to 600 million firearms with trillions of rounds of ammunition. As the saying goes, if they were a problem, we would have known it by now. Despite the oft-repeated emotional argument foisted by the Liberty grabber Left, It is patently obvious that more guns in the hands of the innocent means less crime or governmental tyranny.

The past few years have seen record-setting gun sales, while that type of violence has diminished. The story has always been one of the Pro-Liberty Right compromising, while the Socialist-Left responds with new demands. It is time that they ‘gave back’ (to coin a phrase), for once they should be the ones making the making the compromises.

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson

The degradation of Liberty should in no way be considered to be ‘progress’ or ‘progressive’. Those who claim to be ‘Liberal’ should be advocating Liberty instead of tearing it down. It should also be patently obvious that depriving the people of their means of self-defense does nothing to protect them.

Recent events here here and here, should also make it patently obvious that people will find a way to inflict violence on others. The ever-increasing limitations on Liberty pushed by people who are supposedly ‘Liberal’ on serves to make the situation far worse, with an example of an attack  in a place with severe restrictions on the possession of firearms.

Our List of Demands to reverse the trend towards Liberty.

In light of the recent ‘serious crisis’ that clearly demonstrated that Liberty Control only serves to endanger the innocent, this is our list of demands for the Conservation of Liberty.

1. Background checks should only be on the purchaser, leaving off the data on the firearm.

Ostensibly, the purpose of a Federal background check is to ‘Keep guns out of the hands’ of a laundry list of prohibited persons. So why does the 4473 form include information on the gun being purchased?

If this is supposedly only for the buyer of a gun, why do they need that information? If it is a true ‘background check’ on the purchaser, the information on the gun should be irrelevant. And yet that information is collected under tight controls, why?

Federal law “specifically forbids the government from creating a national registry of gun ownership”,  so why are they collecting that data? Unless they are lying about the purpose of the program.  It is time for the government to be finally true to it’s word, a Background check on a purchaser should just a Background check on a purchaser, nothing more.

2. The Left needs to stop wasting everyone’s time on provisions that violate the commonsense human right of self-preservation.

This includes trying to repeal or virtually rewrite the 2nd amendment based on their twisted interpretation of it’s wording. The Liberty grabber Left needs to be aware of two important points:
One, the 2nd amendment isn’t going anywhere.
Two, it only affirms the common sense human right of self-defence. This means that even if it were to carry out the Herculean task of repealing the 2nd amendment, it would have no effect.

3. Media: Stop pretending snapshot polls taken at the height of hysteria represents steady state opinions.

Any news coverage of a ‘serious crisis’ will invariably include some sort of instant poll, exploiting the raw emotion of the moment that will have ‘90%’ supporting Intergalactic Background Checks or some other restriction on Liberty. It should be obvious that a snap shot glimpse into the psyche of the moment will have wildly inaccurate results, but these are subsequently trotted out to show that ‘everyone’ wants just about every limitation on Liberty under the sun. It is also axiomatic that polls taken during normal periods that don’t exhibit the desired results will be ignored.

4. Liberty grabber Leftists need to acknowledge that background checks already exist.

Those notorious instant polls will also display the anomaly of high polling numbers on ‘background checks’. Often times this vague phraseology will be used to exploit confusion on the issue. This provides an entry for the Liberty grabber Left to interpret this to mean that just about everyone (even NRA members) are demanding Intergalactic Background Checks [Or whatever terms the Left uses to exploit this issue – enhanced, universal, etc].

In point of fact, Federal Background checks have been around for over 25 years, so when a pollster asks about ‘background checks’ many will answer in the affirmative since they know they already exist. While many on the Left will answer the same, not knowing that fact, but are desirous of even more controls on Liberty.

5. Implement the reforms on suppressors.

Despite all the research they’ve done on the subject in the movie theatres, guns with suppressors do not emit a soft ‘Phft’ with each shot. While they cut some of the noise associated with the discharge of combustion gases in the firing of a weapon, they do nothing for the mechanical noise of the cycling of the weapon or the noise emanating from the passage of the round through the air.

So while they can’t turn every handgun into a silent killer, they do protect the hearing of those practising their marksmanship as well as keep the ancillary noise level down for the neighbours of firing ranges. This is why there is no reason to restrict the sales of essentially a muffler for a firearm .

Part II will detail the rest of the items to reverse the trend away from Liberty.

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Man protecting daughter from alleged predator charged with murder

Published

on

Man protecting daughter from alleged predator charged with murder

Playing armchair judge and jury is usually a bad idea. One cannot glean enough facts from a news story to pass appropriate judgment, but in today’s society that’s so quick to judgment anyway, why not play around with it ourselves. The case in question involves a father who may have gone too far in protecting his teenage daughter.

The short version is a man tried to enter the locked stall of a 16-year-old girl at a convenience store. The father of the girl reported it to security. When security did not handle the situation sufficiently, the father confronted the man outside. The man allegedly took a swing at the father, who proceeded to beat him to death.

Here’s the longer version if you want more details:

Father accused of fatally beating man who tried to enter bathroom occupied by teen daughter

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-news-father-beats-man-bathroom-daughter-20180815-story.htmlThe security guard told Melvin Harris he would take care of it. However, cops say that Harris got back into his vehicle and pulled it into a gravel area near where Leon Leevon Armstrong was. Harris is accused of punching Armstrong in the face, and he allegedly hit him repeatedly while the victim was on the ground.

Armstrong suffered swelling to the brain and had a nasal fracture. Armstrong died from his injuries.

Was he right in killing the man? No. That part is obvious. Given the circumstances, should he be charged with 2nd degree murder? If charged, convicted? These the questions that may be answered in a courtroom in the near future.

This is relevant in an age where public restrooms are potentially more dangerous than ever before. They’ve never been truly safe, but the gender non-identity movement has changed things. There have already been multiple reports of abuse by those using society’s new-found tolerance for men in women’s restrooms and dressing areas to their advantage. While this case does not appear to be such a case, it brings to light the question that many parents have asked themselves: If the law isn’t going to protect us and our families, how far must we go to protect ourselves?

I don’t have an answer. Does anyone?

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.