Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Intergalactic Background Checks: Study shows this step to gun confiscation does not work as advertised



Intergalactic Background Checks Study shows this step to gun confiscation does not work as advertise

We have already established that gun confiscation is the left’s final solution to the liberty problem, and from now on this will be the context for any of their proposals or utterances; when they demand, what I call, Intergalactic Background Checks (comprehensive, enhanced, universal, ‘common sense’ etc,); when they want to dictate the extent of our human rights with gun “reform.”

They are in reality demanding gun confiscation.

They have made their gun confiscation intentions quite clear in over 70 instances the past few years.  This is a staggering number given the multiplicative effect of syndication and reprints of these demands.  In light of this the left will no longer be afforded the benefit of the doubt.

Demands for gun confiscation In their own words:

First, we have a quote from Alison Aires, courtesy of Joe Huffman. For what she lacks in stature within the liberty-grabber community of the left, makes up a level of vehemence unmatched by most of her comrades.

Let me tell you how you *actually* get guns banned.

You use the f…….. data that the NSA has. You check membership in gun clubs, you check the surveillance footage to see who’s a regular at shooting ranges. You check the people who are associated with the NRA. You get yourself a good long list of the people in America who love guns.

And when you inevitably catch these f……..ers with banned material? You don’t haul them into a cushy prison. Once the gavel comes down, you haul their a….. into the town square or the main road or whatever the local equivalent is and you execute them. [Edited for language]

Washington Post: A gun-free society

Daily Kos: Yes conservatives, we want to take away your guns…

Euphemisms for government control of personal property

The left loves to come up with all kinds of new ways of depriving the people of their rights, with government control of personal property being no exception. I use ‘Intergalactic’ because when it comes to restricting freedom, why not do it everywhere? It also mocks the left’s self-styled moral superiority in asserting control over the universe at large. Besides, no one can ever know when a few rogue extra terrestrials might have their own version of operation fast and furious warping in a shipment of phased plasma rifles in the 40-watt range over the intergalactic border.

Most of the politicians of the liberty grabber kind have their own word for this unprecedented control over personal property. Hillary Clinton preferred the term “enhanced” background checks, presumably since one ‘enhances’ something when they make it better. For leftists, better always seems to mean a reduction in liberty for some odd reason. And others, like Rep. Nancy ‘slippery slope’ Pelosi (D-CA), used the term “common sense” background checks (a term which is not usually associated with her).

However, the peak in leftist mendacity has to be making reference to these as merely “background checks,” as though they haven’t existed for over 20 years. The implication being that no one will be safe without strict control of personal property and personal freedom.

A prime example was Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) who, like most leftists, wants to take whatever inch they get and push it a mile in controlling liberty. He spoke on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ in October 2017 about the infamous bump-stock ban. He viewed the ban as an initial move on gun control stating that Congress should mandate background checks for all gun purchases.

“That would be the clear next step,” Murphy said. “That should be our North Star.”

A severe restriction on freedom termed a “North Star? This from people who still have the nerve to claim they are Liberal. Too bad for the left that no matter what they are called these checks are useless.

A study found no change in firearm homicide or suicide rates in California 10 years after the enactment of comprehensive background check policies

Logic should tell everyone that these checks on liberty have no use, aside from fostering in the left’s final solution to the gun problem. Those intent on breaking the law will find a way of obtaining a weapon, no matter what the left has done to restrict our freedom.

A study from UC Davis Health confirmed this practical reality.

The study compared gun murder and suicide rates for 10 years after the ‘comprehensive’ background check had been put in place, with 32 control states that had not enacted these measures. They found that there was no difference in these rates before and after these restrictions on freedom had been enacted. In other words, there was no benefit in a little temporary safety for the cost of giving up essential liberty.

(SACRAMENTO) —A study of firearm homicide and suicide rates in the 10 years after California simultaneously mandated comprehensive background checks for nearly all firearm sales and a prohibition on gun purchase and possession for persons convicted of most violent misdemeanor crimes found no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000.

The study, which posted online Oct. 12 as in press at the journal Annals of Epidemiology, was conducted by the Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) at UC Davis and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It compared observed annual firearm homicide and suicide rates in California over 10 years following enactment of comprehensive background check and misdemeanor violence prohibition policies in 1991 with expected rates based on data from 32 control states that did not have these policies and did not implement other major firearm policies during the same time. 

The study found no net difference between firearm-related homicide rates before and during the 10 years after policy implementation. [emphasis mine]

Note that the bias towards liberty control with the subhead of the press release attempting to spin the results as being a factor of incomplete background-check records. But, that is leftism at its core, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Those Intergalactic checks on liberty didn’t work as advertised, so the leftist mindset is to further restrict freedom whether or not it makes a difference.

The Takeaway

The liberty-grabber left’s obsession with gun confiscation should be obvious to everyone, they would prefer that everyone else be reduced to the “Don Rickles” defense, as David Leach termed it.

Intergalactic Background Checks are just the latest step in restricting freedom. Besides not working as advertised, they have no lawful justification. Their own words on the subject have made this crystal clear – that is, they want government control of personal property so they can confiscate it later.

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

1 Comment

  1. Gene Ralno

    December 1, 2018 at 4:04 pm

    Leftists want us to believe they dream of peace in our time and wish for total elimination of firearms from the planet. But they know it’s an impossible dream and just pretend to believe. I used to wonder why leftists saturate media outlets with soothing pleas for conversation instead of acting on their clear and ultimate goal of confiscation. I assumed they stopped short of the extreme because they know firearms owners won’t tolerate confiscation without unimaginable fury. Fact is leftists no longer will settle for controlling little things like bayonet lugs, ammunition taxes, bullet shapes and so on. That was just part of a common leftist flimflam.

    They abandoned compromise because they know the people have caught on to their little ruse. But they still must first have universal background checks that are impossible to regulate without universal registration. What they need first is background checks on transfers between mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, cousins, friends, and neighbors. They’re after inheritances, bequeathals, gifts and sales of inherited collections, however small they are. Those are the voters they hope to transform into dependents of the government.

    Leftists don’t give a hoot about criminals who don’t acquire firearms legally and don’t vote. They need universal registration because it fundamentally transforms 120 million owners into dependents. Once they know who the owners are, they’ll choose which of them are allowed to be licensed. It’s the consummate entitlement. The democrat party cannot survive without more than half the nation being dependent on the government. Leftists trade entitlements for votes. It’s the heart of their strategy.

    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 the leftist 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

A guide to classical liberalism



A guide to classical liberalism

The modern interpretation of the ideology known as “liberalism” is usually associated with the progressive left. Despite the roots of true liberalism – individualism, Natural Rights, and liberty itself – the modern understanding of liberalism has been skewed to make people think more of illiberal politicians like Bernie Sanders instead of Constitutional originalists like Antonin Scalia as liberals.

This 27-minute video does a fine job of breaking down the historical ideas that brought about classical liberalism and the men who brought them to light. It also accurately points out that equality of opportunity for individuals is necessary for a modern society, thus it was this mentality that brought about the end of slavery and the promotion of women’s rights.

From John Locke to James Madison, from the thinkers of Great Britain to the founding fathers of the United States, this video from The Academic Agent brings us through the history of classical liberalism.

For a brief introduction we posted a shorter video earlier:

What classical liberalism is, briefly progressive left and the Democratic Party have undergone many transformations over the last century. They’ve masterfully spun American understanding of language and labels to the point that history has been in a constant state of being rewritten to conform to their machinations. One of the most perverse examples of this is how they now claim the mantle of “liberalism.”

Sadly, those who embrace Natural Rights, limited government, and individualism have been forced to amend our label as liberals to become “classical liberals” for the sake of escaping confusion. Most Americans today would assume if we call ourselves “liberals” that we must be big fans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

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

Culture and Religion

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance



Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Homicide investigator J. Warner Wallace is familiar with looking for tampering. His job makes him look for things that don’t fit. At his core, he is forced to ask questions about the various situations he investigates in order to see where the evidence points.

When he’s not catching bad guys, he’s a Christian apologist. In this role, he utilizes the same skills he’s honed over the decades as an investigator to demonstrate why it makes much more sense to believe in creation than a randomly generated universe.

The author of Cold-Case Christianity started off as a skeptical atheist, but as he investigated deeper, he soon realized it was impossible for the secular worldview to be correct as it pertained to the origins of the universe and life on the planet.

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

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




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report