Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Evolution of a lie: ‘We’re not talking about taking guns away from people’

Published

on

Mass murder shootings have become all too common these days due in no small part to the destruction of society’s moral underpinnings by the nation’s left through the vestiges of cultural Marxism. They also revel in using such tragedies to advance their cause of depriving the people of their common sense civil right of armed self defense. Consequently, the minute one occurs the clarion call for even more people control will ascend from their ranks.

The past few years have seen their propaganda evolve and change, and this will be an examination of this evolution as well as a short reference list that puts the lie to their oft repeated talking point that no one is talking about taking guns away from people.

A reference list of lies

In the past, the gun grabbers rarely brought up Confiscationthe ‘C’ word. Back then, that was just for certain types of weapons with a divide and conquer strategy. At the time, the propaganda was epitomised by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif with this from a “60 minutes” interview on CBS: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in — I would have done it.”

Never mind that the term “Assault Weapon” has no set definition and could be applied to any type of object usable as a weapon to assault someone.

Even as recently as 2011 it was a case of where the nation’s Left was trying to implement gun control “but under the radar”

The contradictory line has always been as Nancy Pelosi said recently: “We’re not talking about taking guns away from people”. They have to maintain this fiction because confiscation requires the precursor steps of ‘Intergalactic Background Checks’ and registration. The people wouldn’t accede to these measures if they knew it meant their property was to be stolen from them. This is why the gun grabbers have solemnly promised that ‘Intergalactic Background Checks’ won’t lead to registration. And why gun grabbers solemnly promise that registration wouldn’t lead to Confiscation, or the other form when they are made an offer they couldn’t refuse in the form of a mandatory gun “Buy Back”. So, the gun grabbers had to maintain the lie that the ultimate objective of their endeavour wasn’t their ultimate objective.

But times have changed and these days the gun grabbers strive to maintain the fiction that they aren’t talking about confiscation while they talk about confiscation. This will be a guide to their calls for the repeal of the 2nd amendment, confiscation, banning of guns or whatever phrases they have chosen to employ. There really shouldn’t be any sort of list given the line “We’re not talking about taking guns away from people”. But since the nation’s Left will often lie out of both sides of their mouth, it will be an abbreviated enumeration of most of the recent occasions when they expressed a desire for “taking guns away from people”.

As mentioned previously, Leftists had confined their gun confiscation dreams certain kinds of weaponry. For example, In March 2012 there was one author “themoderateman” on the site ‘The Daily Kos’, Who out of the sheer generosity of his heart was willing to mete out the people’s common sense civil rights, letting them keep certain guns… but taking everything else: Yes conservatives, we want to take away your guns…

Such magnanimous generosity over our fundamental human rights did not last for long, however, soon after came the re-election of Barack Obama and the horrific mass murder at Sandy Hook in December 2012 and the floodgates opened up. The nation’s Left saw that time as an historic opportunity to be honest about what they truly wanted. Keyword searches before the Fall of 2012 of such terms as ‘Confiscation’ ,‘Gun ban’, ‘Repeal the 2nd amendment’ yielded few results. December 2012 saw an emboldened Left dropping the mask and expanding reach of their confiscation desires to semi-automatic firearms – and that would essentially be most firearms.

Governor . Andrew M. Cuomo (D – New York) inaugurated the proceedings with the words “Confiscation could be an option.”

That turning point in gun grabber history had them calling for confiscation whenever possible and they have never looked back. The same keyword searches will yield a deluge of results, this will just be a short compilation of those results.

[Note: Due to the sheer number of references, this will be an abbreviated list confined to just the links and short descriptions in some cases from the main players in the gun grabber realm]

October 2017

(CNN)Sachs: Ban semiautomatic assault weapons and save lives

Rawstory: So few Americans understand what the Second Amendment is really about — or its dark history [repeal the Second Amendment.]
New York Times: The Cancer in the Constitution [2nd amendment]
Prospect magazine: Dear America: it’s time to grow up and ban guns

Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.
The New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment
The Week: Ban guns
Eugene Robinson: Gun control should include buyback program like Australia’s

Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]
Washington Post Editorial Board : “President Trump, end this ‘American carnage.'”[Australian-Style Gun Ban]

July 2016

Clinton Delegate Explains How Democrats Will Ban All Guns

June 2016

Rolling Stone: Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

December 2015

The New York Times: End the Gun Epidemic in America [First Front Page Editorial In 95 Years]
Huffington Post: We don’t need gun control. We need domestic disarmament
New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
Salon: The Second Amendment must go: We ban lawn darts. It’s time to ban guns

November 2015

The Daily Beast: Yes, They Want to Take Your Guns Away

October 2015

Baltimore Sun: Repeal the Second Amendment
The Daily Kos: Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto Ban

Hillary Clinton: “In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program.”…..“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level”

Barack Obama: “We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
The Washington Post: A gun-free society

U.S. News & World Report: It’s True, Democrats Want to Take Your Guns

June 2015

Sun-Sentinel: Don’t just get rid of flag, get rid of the gun, too

Please note that this was a transitional time period for the nation’s Left they had gone from just wanting to ban the undefined construct “Assault Weapon” to some wanting to ban semi-auto firearms, while others wanted to confiscate everything. Over time this would evolve to most leftists wanting a complete ban on guns in various forms.

January 7, 2015

Tallahassee Democrat: Stop the insanity: Ban guns

December 2014

Wisconsin gazette: Time is overdue to repeal the Second Amendment

June 2014

Barack Obama: “A couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it — we’re not seeing that again. And basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws.”

May 2014

LA Times: Opinion You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.

December 2012

House Dem: ‘Turn in your guns’
The Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

Curiously enough, all this talk of gun confiscation didn’t ameliorate the people’s fears of gun confiscation and they rose in opposition to the practice, joined the NRA,GOA and local civil rights organizations, bought more guns and stocked up on ammunition. As is usually the case, the fervor died down until the next ‘serious crisis’ took place and the demands for Confiscation began once again. This has been repeated every time with the demands becoming more and more numerous…


At this point in time the question has to be asked: Who HASN’T about taking guns away from people?

Continue Reading
Advertisement
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Pingback: Evolution Of A Lie: “We’re not talking about taking guns away from people” – #Logic Wins

  2. Pingback: Video: What is Socialism (and why It’s closely tied to Gun Confiscation) – #Logic Wins

  3. Keith Smith

    March 30, 2018 at 11:02 am

    The day that they pass gun confiscation legislation is the day that the armed revolution begins. That is not opinion…

  4. Berzrkr50

    May 12, 2018 at 4:18 pm

    I’d much rather ban Democraps. They’re much more dangerous to America’s health…

Leave a Reply

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

Guns and Crime

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations, but he won’t like it

Published

on

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations but he wont like it

As the President becomes more embroiled in Michael Cohen’s payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal, it’s becoming increasingly likely he will be indicted for campaign finance violations. While it’s unlikely this will affect his first term as President, it could mean charges are brought against him the moment he’s no longer in office. This could also add fuel to the fire for Democrats to win in 2020, as it would open the door for charges to be filed.

There’s a way the President can stop the charges before they’re filed, but it’s a step the President likely won’t want to take. If he has paid hush money to other women in the past, before he announced his run for President, he can demonstrate the hush money was paid to protect his personal reputation. If that’s the case, then this no longer falls under campaign finance laws.

It isn’t illegal to pay hush money to people.

The case that prosecutors will try to make is that then-candidate Trump ordered his attorney, Cohen, to facilitate payments to women whose stories could damage his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. If they can prove that the President ordered the payoffs, they then have to prove the reason for the payoffs was to influence the election.

By showing past payoffs to women, the President can go with the story that he didn’t want to damage his marriage or business dealings. This play might hurt his reputation, but it would likely quash attempts to indict him.

This is all assuming there were past payoffs. If there weren’t, then it would be difficult for his defense to claim the two payoffs in question were not politically motivated.

It may not be the most elegant solution for the President, but if the investigation continues to build a case that he committed campaign finance violations, he may have no choice but to reveal past payoffs that show he’s immoral, but not a criminal.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The only question that really matters in the Russia investigation

Published

on

The only real question that matters in the Russia investigation

From now until special counsel Robert Mueller delivers whatever he’s going to deliver to the government and the American people, everyone will speculate about who did what, who knew what, and when. This is an exercise in reading tea leaves and inserting bias into reports. That’s what both politicians and mainstream media do in an effort to influence people into feeling one way or another about any particular topic.

Despite the cacophony that surrounds Mueller, President Trump, and Russia, this really comes down to a single question that matters: Did the President or his campaign staff collude with Russia to engage in illegal activities in an effort to win the election?

Up front, it’s important to declare my perspective on the issue. I’d suggest all journalists declare their biases up front, but few will. I’m not a fan of President Trump. I don’t care for him as a man and I am against a few of his policies such as banning bump stocks and promoting fair trade over free trade. I am happy that he beat Hillary Clinton but I felt there were much better options for the GOP and for the nation that were ignored because mainstream media pushed Trump to be the nominee in hopes he would lose spectacularly to Clinton. That didn’t work out for the media or the nation.

Even with my bias, I call things the way I see them and right now, I’m not seeing much coming from the investigation I think it’s very unlikely the President colluded with the Russians to influence the election. Let’s be clear what that means. Do I think members of Trump’s campaign worked with Russians? Yes. Do I think Russians tried to influence the election? Of course. But I am fairly certain the Trump campaign did not participate in activities that would be deemed illegal. They didn’t accept foreign funds to fuel the campaign. They didn’t supply the Russians or anyone else with damaging information about Hillary Clinton. They didn’t actively engage in subverting the election system to “steal” votes or otherwise manipulate the outcome. Most importantly, they didn’t collude with Russia or WikiLeaks to release the hacked emails.

They didn’t have to. Russia and WikiLeaks did all that without input from the Trump campaign.

I believe what the Trump campaign did was on par or possibly below what the Clinton campaign did in working with foreign actors to gather and transmit opposition research about Trump. Both campaigns were wrong for doing so but neither campaign broke the law.

Let’s all understand what’s required to prove this conspiracy. First, the Russians must be proven to have unlawfully “hacked” the election. That doesn’t mean finding Russian social media bots. That means finding proof that the Russians committed illegal activities such as hacking the DNC emails or paying political organizations to promote their messages.

Second, the Trump campaign must be shown to have direct knowledge of the illegal activities. The closest thing we have to that is Roger Stone. If he had direct knowledge that Russia hacked the DNC and/or John Podesta’s emails and gave those emails to WikiLeaks so they could be made public, then there’s something worth investigating. Having that knowledge alone is enough to get him in trouble for not reporting it, but it’s unlikely that route will be pursued. What the investigation needs is actual collusion. That could come in the form of coordinating the release date, giving access to certain people in the media, or aiding in corroboration if any became necessary to prove the leaked documents were real.

From there, Mueller’s team would have to connect the dots directly back to the Trump campaign. Then and only then can any measure of collusion in Russia’s influence of the election be proven.

So far, noise but no substance

Much is being made of Michael Flynn’s, Michael Cohen’s, and Paul Manafort’s upcoming sentences. All have admitted to committing crimes. Cohen has gone so far as to publicize some of the things he knows about the Trump campaign. None of those revelations have linked the campaign to Russia in a conspiratorial manner.

Everything the public knows about the crimes these men committed have nothing to do with Russian collusion. It’s ironic that Mueller’s investigation led to so many charges that have nothing to do with the original scope of the investigation. One might argue the greatest damage this investigation will have on the President is that it demonstrates he likes to surround himself with criminals.

There are only two major players who are in real jeopardy: Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner. If they were working with Stone or anyone else to coordinate with Russia on illegal activities, we might see something big come from this investigation. It’s highly unlikely at this point, but that’s really the only thing Democrats and mainstream media can hope for right now.

Democrats and mainstream media are up in arms trying to connect distant dots in a way that proves the President or his campaign stole the election with the Russians. A sober examination of everything we know points far away from that conclusion.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

US: Trump’s ex-lawyer deserves prison despite cooperation

Published

on

US Trumps ex-lawyer deserves prison despite cooperation

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, deserves a substantial prison sentence despite his cooperation in a hush money payment case that implicated the president, federal prosecutors said Friday.

Court filings by prosecutors from both New York and the Trump-Russia special counsel’s office laid out for the first time details of the cooperation of a vital witness who once said he’d “take a bullet” for the president but who in recent months has become a prime antagonist. He is to be sentenced next week.

They filings reveal that Cohen told prosecutors he and Trump discussed a potential meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in 2015, shortly after Trump announced his candidacy for president.

In a footnote, special counsel Robert Mueller’s team writes that Cohen conferred with Trump “about contacting the Russia government before reaching out to gauge Russia’s interest in such a meeting,” though it never took place.

An additional filing was expected later Friday in the case of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who prosecutors say lied to them even after agreeing to cooperate.

Prosecutors in Cohen’s case said that even though he cooperated in their investigation into hush money payments made to two women who said they had sex with Trump, he nonetheless deserves to spend time in prison.

“Cohen did provide information to law enforcement, including information that assisted the Special Counsel’s Office,” they said. “But Cohen’s description of those efforts is overstated in some respects and incomplete in others.”

In meetings with Mueller’s team, Cohen “provided information about his own contacts with Russian interests during the campaign and discussions with others in the course of making those contacts,” the court documents said.

Cohen provided prosecutors with a “detailed account” of his involvement, along with the involvement of others, in efforts during the 2016 presidential campaign to complete a deal to build a Trump Tower Moscow, the documents said. He also provided information about attempts by Russian nationals to reach Trump’s campaign, they said.

However, in the crimes to which he pleaded guilty in August, he was motivated “by personal greed and repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends.”

Prosecutors said the court’s Probation Department estimated that federal sentencing guidelines call for Cohen to serve at least four years in prison. They said that “reflects Cohen’s extensive, deliberate and serious criminal conduct.”

Prosecutors say Cohen “already enjoyed a privileged life,” and that “his desire for even greater wealth and influence precipitated an extensive course of criminal conduct.”

___

Associated Press writers Larry Neumeister in New York and Michael Balsamo in Washington contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report