Connect with us

Guns and Crime

NYT opinion: Punish gun shops and owners for following the law

Published

on

Purdue University Associate Professor and New York Times opinion columnist Roxane Gay is calling people to rise up and finally take a stand for gun control. Gay however, can’t really make a statement that truly sticks. If she did, people like me will truly call her out on it.

You know what she is calling for: To hold the gun business accountable for what one of their customers did, and severely punish them for someone else’s sin

Opinion | No More Shootings That Follow the Rules

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/opinion/vegas-shooting-gun-control-paddock.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/opinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0Like many others in the United States, I gave up hope of seeing any kind of effective gun regulation in this country after the murder of 20 children and six teachers and other workers at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012. But each time there is another mass shooting, I wonder if there is a tipping point, if there is, indeed, a tragedy grotesque enough for the callous politicians who are willing to take money from the National Rifle Association while offering nothing more than their thoughts and prayers to victims.

Analysis

Does Gay really want to punish gun shops who follow the law, when one of their customers alters the product that they buy? The only thing they can do is slap a disclaimer telling their customers not to alter their weapons; force them to have legal contracts of sorts with the customers forcing them to change the weapons in any way shape or form or they shall be punished by law. That, on top of the current state and federal laws and FBI background checks.

Otherwise you know what she is calling for: To hold the gun business accountable for what one of their customers did, and severely punish them for someone else’s sin. She would be fine imprisoning the managers and/or owners of the gun shop and closing down the business. She does not say this, but I honestly think that is what she is implying.

She points out how certain things are regulated “for the greater good.” Nobody is saying that we should not have reasonable regulations and rules regarding driving speeds, food preparation, medical practices etc. Guns are heavily regulated but it’s never enough for Gay. Just say it lady, “we should not have a right to own guns and protect ourselves as private citizens.”

Gay says that the concert-goers should have a right to survive. OK, how do we do that? I say we allow law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. She would prefer to have only law enforcement (especially those who will eventually that will answer to progressive and/or tyrannical masterminds) bear arms.

No surprise Gay had to bring up the NFL players and her support of their phony protest. She says that we are treating the Constitution like “a malleable document they can shape to suit their political interests.” Please, take a look in the mirror. Tell me who is selective about the rules to follow? The “political will” however, right now sadly favors this Purdue University professor.

The Takeaway

I have talked a lot about abortion/baby murder in the past few days, but I would bet you she also favors lighter regulations (or none at all) on that industry. Abortion Rights: Good. Gun Rights: Bad. It all comes down to this. Disarming the people and having absolute control over them, including the Government’s “right” to eventually murder certain people for “the greater good.”

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

First they came for the gun owners….

Published

on

By

First they came for the gun owners

…but I didn’t say anything because I didn’t own a gun.

One of the more infuriating aspects of the Left’s game of denying reality with their little ‘That wasn’t really socialism’ is that there are distinct parallels between their agenda and that of other socialist nations, past and present. They all have a similar process of imposing socialistic slavery with a specific national agenda. A key part being the deprivation of the means of self-defense to their citizens and those who posses these means.

Denying the right of self-defense is a fundamental aspect of socialism

It is a fact of history that gun confiscation is an integral part of implementing of a socialist national agenda. The USSR required the people to turn in their guns, as did the German national socialist worker’s party. As was Fidel Castro’s response in the question of whether the people should have guns as or the United Socialist Party of Venezuela confiscating guns from the people for their own safety, of course.

These have all taken place at the onset of socialistic slavery, but somehow the new version isn’t the same because reasons. Leftists aren’t really trying to set up a governmental monopoly on the use of force, they are just trying to protect the children* [ *unborn and under 9 months old excluded ]. Even though it has been proven time and again that their repression of Liberty does not work as advertised.

The liberty grabber left is now celebrating the destruction of basic civil liberties

Where this subject not so deadly serious, it would be comical to still witness leftists parroting the ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or a variant thereof. Meanwhile they can scarcely contain themselves in the glee over New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern seizing on their ‘serious crisis’ to confiscate guns with tweets looking to replicate the destruction of a basic human right in the states.

It is more than a coincidence that the tempo of the drum beat for liberty control has increased while the ideological fraud of socialism is being forced on the people. After a long winded piece gloating about leftist victories over liberty, an opinion piece in Bloomberg has even suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts seize on the serious crisis in New Zealand, using it to destroy this basic civil liberty.

Citizens turned into subjects with a change in the relationship between the people and the government

The genius of the founding fathers is that they recognized that down through history, people have had varying relationships with government. In most cases it was one of the government having a monopoly on the use of force. On occasion the people would challenge this monopoly and change the government, but only after an ensuing orgy of carnage and death.

The founders set forth a new paradigm, that of government by the consent of the people with a semblance of parity via a distributed ability to use force. The nation’s Socialist-Left would like to change or ‘reform’ that paradigm back to the old-fashioned version of the government being the sole purveyor of force. Please note that we are dispensing with the tired old line of the left that this is not what they want. They have made this quite clear over the past few years to the point that anyone that is informed of the issue recognizes that this is just another lie on their part.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” – Thomas Paine

Relegating gun owners to 2nd class citizenship

Those of us who haven’t traded, sold or lost all of our guns in a boating accident are a persecuted class these days. The situation is much akin to a baseball pitching machine throwing fastballs over and over again without let-up. With all kinds of new laws being proposed at state and federal levels that range from invasive Intergalactic Background Checks, liability insurance requirements, gun registration and of course, gun confiscation SWATing legislation.

The destruction of basic civil liberties will only begin with gun owners

Every citizen of the nation is protected with basic Constitutional principles and civil rights including due process, the presumption of innocence and the right to face one’s accuser.

The gun owner has been excluded from these basic civil liberties in some states, and if the liberty grabbers had their way, such would be the case nationwide. With just the flimsiest insinuation of being ‘dangerous’ a gun owner [or those who are merely accused of being a gun owner] will be subjected to gun confiscation raid from the authorities.

This will be just the beginning of the ordeal – if they survive the SWAT team coming at 5:00 AM without warning. Our 2nd class citizen will have to prove they aren’t ‘dangerous’ after they have effectively found guilty in a star chamber. It will only be after spending thousands of dollars in legal fees that they may get their property back in less than stellar condition. The trend is to set gun owners below the legal status of accused criminals in the eyes of the justice system.

We’re just starting on the slippery slope

Fresh from their moves against the basic human right of self-preservation, the chief censor of the government of New Zealand has arbitrarily decided that certain ideas are beyond the pale, sparking a debate over free speech as reported by the Associated Press. This of course is another ongoing controversy in the states over the issue of political correctness and ‘Hate speech’. This shows that isn’t just about ‘military style assault weapons’ or whatever is the phrase at the moment, this is a question of liberty, something the people who use a similar sounding label used to pretend to support.

Make no mistake, the legislative mechanisms and regulations used to deprive gun owners of their commonsense human and civil rights will be used on others if they are allowed to stand. A civil liberties group in California made the point that one doesn’t have to be a gun owner to be subjected to gun confiscation SWATing. If they can go after the property of a gun owner in one instance, because they don’t like their attitude, what’s to stop them from going after a journalist or other type of activist? These orders only have to allege someone is dangerous with little evidence, much less proof that they own a gun. What’s to stop them from deciding free-speech is dangerous or ‘offensive’ necessitating that their computers or cell phones should be seized – at gunpoint no less?

The Takeaway

The whole point of the ‘first they came for’ series is that authoritarians rarely go after everyone at once. They are very careful in picking their targets for their oppression with the tactic of divide and conquer. Today it’s the people who own guns, tomorrow it will be those who don’t conform to the precepts of ‘political correctness’.

This is why President John F. Kennedy stated that: “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

This is why everyone should be concerned at the headlong rush to denigrate the right of self-defense. And why everyone should be horrified that the government could even consider jettisoning the basic civil liberty of due process and the presumption of innocence. The loss of basic civil rights for some will mean the loss for everyone.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Illegal alien crimes are getting more frequent, more heinous, and the media’s ignoring it

Published

on

Several communities have been shocked by slayings attributed to illegal immigrants

If you’re watching any mainstream media channels other than occasionally Fox News, you’ll notice the rash of slayings allegedly committed by illegal immigrants that we’ve been covering aren’t making national news the way they should. It goes against their narrative to report that there are people who aren’t supposed to be in this country who are killing American citizens.

Nevertheless, we’ll continue to report on them. Fox News occasionally does. Other conservative media outlets have been trying to keep up as well, but there have been so many it’s actually getting difficult to keep track. Here are the three mentioned in the Fox News video above, duly reported by NOQ Report. We rely on the generosity of our readers to allow us to keep reporting this important news.

But it doesn’t end with the three Fox News reported on. There have been so many heinous crimes allegedly committed by illegal immigrants in the past couple of months, we could fill our pages with stories about them alone and still have a full-blown news outlet.

Yes, it’s that bad. Here’s a sample:

Keep in mind, this is just over the past two months.

It isn’t just reporting the news that’s important. We are clear and bold in the way we report it. You won’t find flower language like “undocumented migrant” or “asylum-seeking snowflake” when we describe these criminal illegal immigrants or the crimes they allegedly commit. We use the proper terminology warranted by the White House. Those who enter the country illegally or stay longer than they’re supposed to stay are illegal aliens. Period.

Another important note is that we’re very much in favor of legal immigration. In fact, as a legal immigrant myself, I’m all in favor of increasing the number of legal immigrants who can enter the country just as soon as we stop the flow of illegal immigrants. We must deport those who are a risk to citizens, every last one of them. Then, we must fund ICE and border patrol to be able to detain those who are captured. Catch-and-release must be a thing of the past.

On top of that, we have to secure the borders with a strong combination of a wall, advanced LiDAR technology, much more border patrol agents, and more detention centers to accommodate the overflow we’re currently experiencing.

Visa overstays are arguably a bigger problem. There must be accountability for those who enter the country and either fail to extend their stay legally or ignore their visa expiration altogether. If that means weekly check-ins via mobile devices and instant warrants the moment their visas expire without record of them leaving or extending, so be it.

When all of these things are done, THEN let’s talk about immigration reform. Until then, we have too big of a problem with illegal immigration to even remotely consider expanding legal immigration in this country.

There is nothing wrong with having compassion. That means requiring they enter legally. It means those who deny our sovereignty by coming or staying illegally must be dealt with properly. The safety of American citizens must come first.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Meth mules arrested in desert near Tucson

Published

on

Meth mules arrested in desert near Tucson

Drugs are smuggled into the United States through multiple means. Some comes through ports of entry by land or see, which gives border patrol the easiest opportunity to thwart their efforts. But much of the drugs are brought over by foot or boat, entering the United States where there is no wall or protection against foreign incursion.

Border patrol announced a bust this week of just such a type of incursion. The smugglers were carrying bags of methamphetamine across the desert, far from a part of entry and from areas where there is no border wall separating the United States from Mexico.

Agents from the Tucson Sector Mobile Response Team (MRT) aboard a National Guard helicopter responded to a report of six men walking in a desert area frequently utilized by drug smugglers. MRT agents found and arrested six Mexican nationals illegally present in the United States, after a tracking operation with a K-9 team.

One of the men was carrying four packages of methamphetamine concealed in a cardboard box inside his backpack. A search of the immediate area resulted in the discovery of a two-way radio, a communication method commonly used by smuggling organizations.

My Take

One of the main narratives being pushed by the left against building a border wall is their claim that nearly all arrests of drug smugglers are made at ports of entry. While this is true, it’s not a very good way to support their case. Drug smugglers who do not use ports of entry are simply not captured as often because… wait for it… there’s no wall in so many areas and border patrol can’t comb the entire desert looking for them.

Drugs are being smuggled into the United States, and not only through ports of entry. Those who use vehicles to try to smuggle drugs in do so because the loads may be too big to carry on foot, but whether it comes in on truck full of hundreds of pounds of drugs through ports of entry or by foot with hundreds of mules crossing the border illegally where there’s no wall, it’s getting here nonetheless.

It’s ignorant to believe our success in sniffing out drugs in vehicles means the smugglers are going to give up, especially when transit across our porous borders is so easy. Walls aren’t just to prevent illegal immigrants. They’ll help stop crime.

Don’t let the left use the “port of entry drug bust” claim to confuse the issue. Not all smugglers are dumb enough to drive their drugs through ports of entry. Most of it’s coming through places where there’s no wall. Build the wall.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report