Connect with us


The liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns, part II



The liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns part II

The Left has gone full confiscator in the debate over Liberty, this is how we should respond to their demands from now on.

In the past the enemies of Liberty on the Left have tried the incremental approach to the deprivation of fundamental human and civil rights. In their zeal to produce a groundswell, they have made it clear that they reject the freedom of self-defense as well as other vestiges of the founding documents. This has been documented here and a number of other places to the point they can no longer deny this fact.

The Left has changed the argument to a contention between Liberty and tyranny.

While they tried to pretend that gun confiscation wasn’t their real goal, the evidence for that is quite clear from their writings. Their frustration at the lack of ‘progress’ in the diminution of Liberty caused them to become more vitriolic in the process. Curiously enough, what was alleged to be the ‘right’ side of history has been shown to be wrong with other nations reversing the course away from tyranny and towards Liberty.

Their writings and commentary over the years has made it quite clear that they have but one goal: Gun confiscation. With all of their energy and activism prioritising the attainment of that goal. The body of evidence shows that any compromises or ‘common sense’ steps are mere stepping-stones to their endgame. The recent comment by Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell epitomises the mindset of the Left, that we are to give up our freedom or suffer the consequences.

Compromises met with still more demands.

In the past, we of the Pro-Liberty Right have compromised in trying to resolve the issue, only to be met with still more demands in their incremental assault on Liberty. Any attempts at ‘bipartisanship’ are subsequently ignored to the point that the Left will Lie about the very existence of these compromises, as in the example of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ‘NICS’ system. This is being done for the sole purpose of imposing even more draconian controls on freedom.

The openly stated goal of the Left of total gun confiscation means a major change in the debate over the subject. It will no longer be one on the efficacy of incremental compromise steps, but in the context of the demand for gun confiscation made by the Left in and of themselves over the past few years.

The debate over Liberty in the context of the Left’s demand for Gun confiscation.

Terminology – ‘Control’ changed to ‘Reform’.

The Left loves to play games with words, blithely using them to deceive and outright lie. Their exploitation of the word ‘Liberal’ is a prime example of their outright deceit in this realm. The debate over the fundamental human right of self-defense is no exception. In the past the Liberty grabber Left used the term ‘Gun Control’ until it was noticed that it was more of an issue of control than of inanimate objects.

Then the Left hit on the idea of labeling most, if not all of their control schemes as ‘reform’. Neglecting that the word has it’s origins in sense of restoration or

‘bring back to the original condition’ from the word in Latin ‘reformare, from re- ‘back’ + formare ‘to form, shape’

But ‘reform’ sounds so much nicer than control, until one considers the tyrannical stick that accompanies this ‘reform’ ranges from a SWAT team with small ‘flash bang’ grenades to megaton sized ‘flash bang’ nuclear weapons as threatened by the likes of Representative Swalwell.

Leftists demands for ‘gun reform’ or ‘common sense’ control of our Liberty should be met with the reminders of their ultimate demands. And that there won’t be any more moves towards gun confiscation no matter what they call it.

Demands to ‘Do something, anything!’ after every serious crisis.

The context here will be in terms of the Left’s stated goal of Gun confiscation. The Left used to abjectly deny that the innocent were being punished, but with confiscation being the goal that is clearly the case.

Punishing 120 Million innocent people for the actions of a few criminals will be rejected in the context that they have done nothing wrong. That it will be manifestly unfair to take out the Left’s emotional angst on the innocent.

The massive injustice of collectively punishing millions of innocent people should be rejected outright, no matter the emotional impetus.

Defensive Gun Uses [DGU’s] and deterrence.

Within the context of gun confiscation, the Left’s agenda on the subject means that innocent people will be left vulnerable to criminals and the government tyranny. While Leftist gun grab would supposedly save Approximately 36,000 per year people from the spectre of death from ‘gun violence’ the numbers show that far more people [500,000 and 3 million per year] are protected by guns.Far more women would be raped or killed for not having the equalising factor of a means of self-defence.

Worse still, the deterrence effect would be gone after confiscation since criminals would know the innocent cannot be armed. Converting the entire country into a disastrous ‘gun-free’ zone where only the criminals and government would be armed.

It should be obvious that disarming the innocent doesn’t protect the innocent. Now that the Left’s plans have been laid bare, they should now be the ones culpable for endangering everyone with their Utopian fantasies of ‘gun-free’ zones.

Intergalactic Background Checks and Registration.

Again, this will now be in the context of the Left’s stated goal of Gun confiscation. Both of those steps are useless for any other purpose. Intergalactic Background Checks would see unlawful government over private property. While registration would set the precedent that one needs permission from the government to have the means to hold the government in check.

Intergalactic [or universal, enhanced or ‘common sense’] Background Checks and Registration are worthless expenditures of effort aside from being precursor’s confiscation. At this point in time it would be ludicrous to trust them with any more compromises or the yielding of Liberty to them.

Out with the old, in with the Nukes.

In many ways, Mr. Swalwell and the rest of the gun confiscation gang have done us all a great favour. While they have openly revealed their intention for their own cynical purposes, these revelations have changed the debate.

From now on the context will be in terms of gun confiscation.

  • The Left can no longer claim they want to protect women.
  • The Left can no longer claim they want to protect the innocent.
  • The Left can no longer claim they want ‘common sense’ solutions or ‘reform’.
  • The Left can no longer claim they want to protect Liberty and the Constitution.

The Takeaway

The Left went full confiscator, never realising that one should never go full confiscator. They have openly admitted what has been obvious. They changed the debate with the mistaken belief that it would create a groundswell of people wanting to give up their freedom, in exchange for not being vaporised.

Instead of a ground swell, they have destroyed their own argument. But in actuality it was going to be a dead end for them anyway. At some point they would have been forced to admit the obvious, that the end goal has to be confiscation. Eric ‘NuKem’ Swalwell just put a mushroom cloud exclamation point on the admission of that point.


Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Gene Ralno

    November 23, 2018 at 12:03 pm

    Eric “Nukem” Swalwell apparently is not sufficiently educated to have heard of the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152). It forbids the use of military forces to enforce domestic policies within the United States. If he had ever served his country, he’d understand that nobody in the military would ever fire on peaceable Americans, even if ordered to do so. That aside, this wussy boy doesn’t have the guts to personally confiscate anyone’s firearm. Here’s my message for this big shot who never served his country and obviously doesn’t respect it. He believes he personally has powers specifically forbidden by the Constitution to the whole federal government. As America’s supreme law, the Constitution limits federal government authority over citizens.

    The 2nd Amendment specifically forbids what this creepy Californian proposes. It contains only 27 small words so even he should understand it: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The term “militia” refers to peaceable, lawfully armed people. They aren’t reservists, national or state guardsmen, inactive military or any other organized group. They’re civilians. The founders would have had no reason to affirm this natural civil right to military people because they already worked for the government that owned their arms and directed their use. To think otherwise is absurd.

    In this context, the term “infringed” clearly means even the slightest meddling by the federal government is strictly forbidden. Additionally, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The term “incorporated” means even the states are forbidden from meddling in any way with a civilian’s right to keep and bear arms.

    Therefore, the only option to implement what this big mouthed small fry would do is to declare war on America’s firearms owners, all 120 million of them. So, as they say in New York and Connecticut, molon labe. We’ve caught onto this ninny’s little flimflam. He wants no interference with his party’s goal of using taxpayer money to fund entitlements. The democrat party needs entitlements to exchange for votes. They fear any discussion of resistance to their will.

    Citizens just becoming aware should open their minds to the fact that the U.S. is very lucky to have a hundred million legally armed citizens with 400 million firearms in private hands. They should recognize that these are the most peaceable, lawful people in our nation. Leftists need to look at our open borders, colossal drug trade, scarce law enforcement, timid prosecution, limited incarcerations, gang strength, mental defectives living at home and terrorists roaming the streets. Can anyone even imagine the unbridled carnage if this twerp’s goal of total confiscation were to be achieved?

    Every time you vote, think about this. Those who carry out mass murders fear armed citizens and it’s precisely why governments always disarm the governed before they purge the disobedient. Taken together, all the mass shooting deaths from nuts, felons, terrorists and illegal aliens, throughout history for the entire planet, is infinitesimal compared to the total number of civilian citizens murdered by governments. It’s the reason for our 2nd Amendment and throughout human history, it has been a very bad idea to allow any government to disarm its people.

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Leftists keep crying wolf: How ‘racist’ has lost all meaning




Leftists keep crying wolf

The Left needs to start coming up with real arguments instead of relying on the crutch of name-calling.

Nick Kangadis , @TruthOfChicago of MRCTV makes the point that Leftist name calling has destroyed the emotional impact of certain words, leaving them without any practical debating points. Not to mention that a fair amount of time they are merely projecting their maladies on their opposition.

Does the action of being called a “racist” mean anything anymore? You’d think for being people that constantly talk about how tolerant and inclusive they are, the Left sure are hellbent on removing any weight actual racism carries, among other labels they like to arbitrarily place on people. The funny part of the whole thing is that the people who always cry racism seem to be the biggest racists.

Rules for the rational: Never substitute name-calling for a real argument

It’s one thing to frame the debate with a label or proper term, it’s quite another to simply use pejoratives without basis in fact.

We use the terms Leftist or Socialist-Left because those are the proper terms for those people. Conversely, we eschew the terms Liberal or Progressive because they are false descriptors of the Left. Some have tried to argue that the two ‘L’ words of the same length are interchangeable when that is not the case. Leftist are of collectivist bent, while Liberals are individualists.

Similarly, the vaguely defined term ‘Progressive’ runs counter to the post-modernism of the Left. The term national merely relates to or is characteristic of a nation. By the same token, the moniker ‘Liberty grabbers’ for Leftists describes their true nature in that they are no longer advocates of Liberty – despite their ongoing exploitation of the term‘Liberal’.

This is not the case with the Left, they have the unfortunate tendency to use pejoratives such as ‘Racist’, ‘Sexist’, ‘Fascist’, to excess instead of utilising real arguments. Presumably, one is supposed to be figuratively set back on their heels defending against these types of baseless allegations. The danger for the Left is these words have become a poor substitute for rational debating points, not that they ever had much of those in the first place. After all, their best argument in favour of collectivism is that it’s either never been tried before or it’s being tried everywhere.

The takeaway

A rational argument is far better than those worn out pejoratives that are usually based on information they don’t have. In most cases, one cannot know if they fit into those pejorative categories. But that never stopped the Left from using them anyway. The Left’s tactic of projecting the words ‘racist’, ’sexist’ ,’fascist’ has become both sad and amusing. Their desperation in using the follow-up tactic of circular logic in applying those words is also becoming obvious to everyone.

As those words lose their emotional impact from excessive overuse, it will become clearer to all that the Left has no real arguments in favour of it’s socialist national agenda. But most likely it’s racist, sexist or fascist to notice that.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto O’Rourke



Why losing his Senate race was the best thing to happen to Beto ORourke

When the next session of Congress begins, Beto O’Rourke will officially be an outsider. He will no longer be part of the swamp. He’ll be a private citizen because he lost his election bid to replace Ted Cruz as Senator in Texas. This loss will prove to be the best thing that could have happened to his political career.

Beto O’Rourke is on track to be one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

It seems like everybody on the left loves this guy. Despite his destructive far-left ideology, he was able to get closer than anyone would have expected to unseating a Tea Party Republican in deep-red Texas. He was also able to raise more money than anyone else in the midterm elections, raking in more money than the #3 and #4 on the money list combined.

Had O’Rourke won his race, he would have been held to his promise of not running in 2020. Even though his promise was stretched to include winning or losing in 2018, the narrative is quickly changing. With no campaign promise that could come back to haunt him in 2024 had he won his Senate race, backtracking on his no-run 2020 promise is easy.

A recent MoveOn poll actually has him ahead of the competition for the first time, edging out Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. He even got more votes than Senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Amy Klobuchar, and Cory Booker combined.

Beto O’Rourke narrowly tops wide-open MoveOn 2020 presidential straw poll; Biden is runner-up most popular potential candidate was O’Rourke, D-Texas, who was selected by 15.6 percent of respondents, followed by Biden at 14.9 percent, and then Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with 13.1 percent.

It’s another sign of O’Rourke’s surprising popularity among national Democrats and a potentially troubling indication for Sanders, whom MoveOn endorsed in the 2016 Democratic primary. That year, 78 percent of MoveOn members voted to back Sanders over Hillary Clinton

His popularity with the progressive far-left is evident, but he also has some mainstream Democrats turning to him as the best person to go up against President Trump in 2020. Now that he’s going to have free time on his hands, let’s look at three reasons why he should be considered the early frontrunner:

  1. Nationwide Appeal: He may be from Texas, but Democrats won’t hold that against him. If anything, it will have the opposite effect by giving him credibility for doing so well in a red state. It helps that he was in a punk rock band and brandishes a style that’s not stereotypical of any place in America. You won’t see him wearing a cowboy hat any time soon.
  2. Fundraising Prowess: Ted Cruz was the best GOP fundraiser during the 2016 primaries and Beto O’Rourke dominated him in 2018. The only person who could be considered in the same sentence with O’Rourke on the money side is President Obama. If they teamed up (and they will if he gets the nomination), they could draw some serious cash that will dwarf Hillary Clinton’s impressive 2016 haul.
  3. Time and Energy: No need to rush back to Washington for an important vote like the half-dozen Senators who are probably running for president. He also won’t be hampered by 70=year-old legs like Biden and Michael Bloomberg. O’Rourke, is young, energetic, and has nothing better to do than prepare his 2020 bid.

It’s discouraging to know this far-left, gun-grabbing progressive has an inside track to the Democratic nomination. The thought that he could be President should terrify every right-thinking American.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Kevin McCarthy: GOP can investigate Democrats, but Democrats can’t investigate Trump



Kevin McCarthy GOP can investigate Democrats but Democrats cant investigate Trump

When my friend and fellow talk-show host Shannon Joy refers to the Republican and Democrat duopoly in Washington as the #UNIBROW, she does so to show how there is no difference between the two parties when it comes to their agendas.

Another trait they have in common is their obvious display of hypocrisy when it comes to manipulating the rule of law to protect political parties for partisan purposes, especially if you’re a member of the party that was soundly defeated recently, placing you in the minority.

The latest example of what this looks like comes to us courtesy of the new GOP leader in the House, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), in his latest defense of Donald Trump. In a recent interview with Trump Pravda (FOX News), McCarthy mentioned that he thinks it’s time for the Democrats to surrender their subpoena power to investigate the president.

“It looks like what [Democrats will] focus on is just more investigations. I think America is too great a nation to have such a small agenda.

“I think there are other problems out there that we really should be focused on. And my belief is, let’s see where we can work together. Let’s move America forward.”

Ironically, as Obama’s re-election got underway after the Democrats lost the House in the 2010 midterms, Pelosi sounded a lot like McCarthy concerning the need to work together. Funny how the losing party interprets their defeat as a call for “bipartisanship,” isn’t it?

It’s also ironic how the losing party in these two midterm elections, in large part, lost due to the unpopularity of their representative in the White House after two years of broken promises.

McCarthy’s disingenuous plea for bipartisanship is a different tune than the one he was singing in 2015 during the Benghazi hearings. Not only did he support never-ending investigations of Obama and Hillary, he openly admitted in an interview with Sean Hannity that his primary motivation was finding ways to take down the Democrat nominee.

“What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?

“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”

I wonder whatever happened to that “conservative speaker” and that “conservative Congress.”

In the end, McCarthy is playing the same role in 2018 that Pelosi played in 2010: protect the president and the party instead of America while making partisan demands to serve as fodder for the next election.

Hopefully, true conservatives will see through this masquerade of self-centered scoundrels and reject the reprobate “representatives” dwelling in D.C. from both parties.

And yes … that includes the Democrat with an “R” after his name currently occupying the White House.

Originally posted on


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

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report