Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The Top 5 Reasons to Reject Intergalactic Background Checks.

Published

12 months ago

on

Call them what you will – enhanced, Intergalactic or whatever, they will be Universally ignored by the guilty and only serve to punish the innocent.

Once again, we are seeing our rights being eroded before our very eyes. With the latest mass murder outrage caused by the Left’s cultural Marxism, it is being demanded that we compromise on that which shall not be infringed. In their unending quest to disarm the people and empower themselves, the push is being made for Intergalactic Background Checks (enhanced, Universal, etc.)

As surely as night follows day, the Liberty grabbers are in high dungeon over the people actually having the ability to defend themselves. Thus they want the next stepping stone to their final aim of Gun Confiscation. The most infuriating aspect of this is that there are those on the Pro-Liberty, Conservative-Right side of the aisle who are willing to concede this important point to the Liberty grabbers.

Let us be clear on the real meaning of the seemingly innocuous phases bandied about by the enemies of liberty on the Left. When they talk about the ‘Intergalactic’ version of Background Checks they are really asserting the authority over everyone’s private property, a governmental overreach that would be enraged the truly Liberal founding fathers. Property rights are the cornerstone of Liberty, so do we really want the government to control It with these controls?

The following are the Top 5 reasons to reject this gross intrusion into our private property, not to mention being a violation of a number of the amendments in the Bill of Rights

1). Intergalactic Background Checks would punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty based on a polling impossibility.

The Liberty Grabbers have a perennial favourite tactic when it comes to this issue, trotting polling data that implies 90% agreement with ‘Background Checks’. Everyone should be immediately suspect of any polling data that shows upwards of over ¾ of the populace agreeing on anything. In the diverse electorate environment of the states, this kind of agreement is almost impossible. But to the Liberty Grabbers of the national Socialist Left, this is akin to mom and apple pie territory.

This polling is like that of comparing a known political candidate with an unspecified place holder. Often times people will fill in the blank with their ideal, in the case of ‘background checks’ those on the Pro-Liberty side merely agree to that which already exists.

While the Leftist enemies of Liberty fill in the blank with all manner of draconian schemes they can think of to punish the innocent for daring to want to protect themselves. After all, these are people who evidently don’t understand firearms or the unimaginable overburden of laws on a basic human right. So to them, imposing a hardship any milder than outright confiscation is being overly generous.

2). They don’t work while burdening the innocent in exercising their Common Sense human rights.

A massive study on the efficacy of ‘Gun’ Control from the RAND Corporation was recently published  that stated in part:

We reviewed thousands of studies to identify all available evidence for the effects of 13 gun policies on eight outcomes. After excluding studies that did not meet our criteria for establishing a law’s effects, we found little persuasive evidence for the effects of most policies on most outcomes.

On the specific issue of ‘Universal’ [‘Intergalactic’ or ‘enhanced’] Background Checks on mass shootings

Summary: Evidence for the effect of background checks on mass shootings is inconclusive.

Key Findings:

Background checks have uncertain effects on mass shootings.

Evidence for this relationship is inconclusive.

Translating the academician speak into the King’s English – when they use phrases such as ‘uncertain effects’ or ‘inconclusive’ it really means ‘We don’t know’ and there is no hard data that these policies work. Parenthetically speaking, It’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t have trumpeted concrete, real world results for these policies from the virtual rooftops, if they could have found the data to support them.

Compare their ‘uncertain effects’  against the societal cost in disarming the innocent with people no longer having the ability to defend themselves. In an article published on townhall.com entitled: How Many Lives Are Saved by Guns — and Why Don’t Gun Controllers Care?

The author details the number of non-suicide firearm deaths as roughly 11,000. While estimates of lives Saved by guns as ranging from “500,000 to more than 3 million per year”. That would be the societal cost of Intergalactic Background Checks for virtually no benefit.

3). Intergalactic Background Checks lack Constitutional Justification.

Can anyone imagine the founding fathers acquiescing to governmental control over private property?

They knew that private property was the cornerstone of Liberty, so governmental control of it wouldn’t of made any sense to them. Set aside the enormous infringement on a common sense human right as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment while considering this possible ‘addition’ to the 4th amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” – but they will be under complete control of the government.

It could also argued that since the government asserting control over property, there would no longer be an ‘private’ property, thus part of the 5th amendment would no longer exist: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So, in a trifecta of tyranny, Intergalactic Background Checks would violate at least 3 Amendments of the Bill of Rights. We could have extended this with the those also violating the 9th and 10th amendments, but the point has been made.

Parenthetically speaking, it’s always fun to ask our comrades of the national Socialist Left what is the legal or Constitutional justification for Intergalactic Background Checks. No answer will be forthcoming because there is no justification for this absurd amount of governmental overreach.

As to the justification for regular background checks, it could be argued that they are based on the often abused commerce clause with the firearm dealers being federally licensed.

4). IBC’s would set the Very Dangerous precedent of Collective Property Control.

Those imbued with the precepts of individual Liberty would find such a precedent abhorrent. Those of the collectivist ‘Common good before individual good’ mindset would be perfectly satisfied with that level of government overreach. It would also give them the opportunity to extend that kind of social engineering to untold areas of mischief.

Considering that such a perversion of property rights would turn the governmental limitations of the 2nd Amendment on it’s head, the implications of Intergalactic Background Checks are enormous. Instead of being a restraint on the government, a new-found constraint on the people will have been created out of whole cloth.

For if the government has purview over firearms, why not over items that emit greenhouse gasses? What other human rights could the collectivists eviscerate with that level of control? History has proven that governments cannot be trusted with too much power, hence the rationale of the founding fathers to limit it’s potential to grow out of control.

Who knows how the precedent of government control of private property could be abused?
Perhaps ever-increasing fees over obtaining permission to transfer a firearm?
Why not property taxes on firearms, enough to price most people out of possession?
[Note: There is a very good chance that the Liberty grabbers have already considered these ideas, so we cannot be blamed for presenting them]

5). Intergalactic Background Checks are the next step towards Gun Confiscation.

It should be painfully obvious that the only reason the Liberty grabbers obsess over this issue is that it is the next step for them toward their ultimate objective of gun confiscation. Intergalactic Background Checks would naturally lead into Gun registration followed by Gun confiscation. In point of fact, as soon as the government has control over everyone’s firearms, it is just a matter of picking them up at the most opportune time: Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

The enemies of Liberty on the Left have overwhelmingly expressed a desire for gun confiscation so it’s primarily a matter of determining who has the firearms. Intergalactic Background Checks will go a long way in attaining this goal, for once they have control over the legal transfer of every gun, they can assemble registration lists and demand that their owners surrender their ‘property’ at any time.

This is why this type of tyranny needs to be stopped, dead in it’s tracks.

Reference:

On the specific issue of ‘Universal’ [‘Intergalactic’ or ‘enhanced’] Background Checks on mass shootings

We identified one study that examined the effects of background checks on mass shootings and met our inclusion criteria. Using a two-way fixed-effects linear probability model, Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) estimated the effects of background check laws on a binary indicator for whether a mass shooting occurred in a given state-year. The authors included two measures of background check laws: an indicator for whether laws required a background check for all handgun transactions (including private sales) and an indicator for whether laws required a background check for all firearm transactions (including private sales). The authors’ regression ­analysis covered 1989–2014 and included controls for time-invariant state characteristics; national trends; a host of other state-level gun policies; and time-varying state-level demographic, socioeconomic, and political characteristics. Their findings showed an uncertain relationship between background check laws and the probability of at least one mass shooting event occurring.

Related Topics:
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Public Citizen

    March 6, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    There is one key characteristic present in nearly all of these mass casualty events, that being the perpetrator is either a Registered Democrat or the offspring of a Democrat.
    What is it about the Democrat Way of Thinking that acts as an incubator for the sort of mind that perpetrates these sorts of crimes?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage

Published

5 hours ago

on

February 18, 2019

By

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Man fined £1,000 for outdated sense of humor

Published

7 hours ago

on

February 18, 2019

By

Man fined £1000 for outdated sense of humor

Jonathon Van Maren, a contributor for LifeSiteNews, recently stumbled across an article in the UK’s Edinburgh News about a construction worker who was arrested for “pointing and laughing” at a biological male who was dressed as a female (transgender woman).

[Author’s Note: It is impolite and unkind to point and laugh at others. This article is not an endorsement of such behavior.]

As Van Maren explained, a construction worker named Graham Spiers was walking with a group of friends. The group pointed and laughed while passing a transgender individual who, suspecting that his appearance had become the subject of ridicule, telephoned the police.

Spiers was arrested five day later.

Sherriff Robert Fife scolded Mr. Spiers’s sense of humor and actions:

Transgender insanity: Police now jailing people for laughing at men in women’s clothes

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/transgender-insanity-police-now-jailing-people-for-laughing-at-men-in-womenSheriff Robert Fife also piled on, informing Spiers that, “Your offensive comments were not funny at the time and are not funny now. Your children should grow up understanding gender differences and would be ashamed at your behavior that comes from a different era has no place in today’s society.” Fife then told Spiers that in addition to the cash he had to pay to the biological man for laughing at him, he also had to pay an additional fine of another five hundred pounds.

Graham Spiers was ordered to pay a total of £1,000 for his actions “from a different era,” 500 of which was paid to the complainant.

Of the actions by police and the court in this instance, Van Maren opined:

It is disgusting enough that law enforcement would arrest and charge someone for this triviality. That alone indicates that freedom in Scotland is truly dead. But the fact that law enforcement then lectured Spiers on being a throwback from a different age (that different era being about a decade ago, for the record) and telling him his children should be ashamed of him? And that Spiers was expected to cower and listen to this tongue-lashing from his betters so he could get re-educated and realize that men could now become women and that laughing at their attempts was forbidden by law? That should absolutely repulse any liberty-loving person and terrify everyone who values freedom.

My Take

Pointing and laughing at others is unquestionably unkind. I am repulsed at the thought of such outward meanness. However, that this behavior so would be considered illegal and result in one’s arrest is punitive at best, and is undoubtedly a waste a valuable time and resources. Furthermore, the punishment in this case is brazenly excessive.

This is yet another instance of big government run amok. The Founders knew the dangers of big government. It would be prudent of us to heed the Founders’ advice, lest we find ourselves in the position of Mr. Spiers: subjugated beneath the arbitrary boot of “benevolent” governmental authority.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

Published

11 hours ago

on

February 18, 2019

By

The anti-MAGA hoax epidemic

There’s a trend that’s been quietly, consistently rearing its ugly head against the President of the United States and his supporters since before the 2016 election. We’ve seen it among unhinged journalists, virtue-signaling celebrities, and Democratic politicians. We’ve seen it manifest in the ugliest form of hatred – the common hate-hoax – and it’s doing more to divide America than the source of the perpetrators’ anger.

They hate President Trump. They hate the people who got him elected. The hate the idea of making America great again because as much of the MAGA agenda comes to pass, they’re learning they’ve been wrong the whole time. I know first hand. I’ve been proven wrong myself.

No, I’m not a hate-hoaxer, but I’ve been against the President to varying degrees for over three years now. Before he officially won the GOP nomination in 2016, I opposed him because I felt he would do too much damage while delivering only a moderate amount of good policies. He wasn’t as bad as John Kasich or Jeb Bush, but we had Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul as better candidates. Nevertheless, he won the nomination, prompting me to spend the final leg of the 2016 election without a horse in the race. I didn’t like the idea of Trump being President, but under no circumstances did I want Hillary Clinton to be President, either.

100% crowdfunded news. Please help.

After he won, I became a cautious but hopeful watcher. While we worked on alternatives to bring limited-government federalism to the forefront of local, state, and national politics, I took a case-by-case stance on the President himself. When he did well, I praised him. When he did poorly, I criticized him. This stance has remained until this day, though there have been times when I was more supportive or more critical, depending on the policy discussion of the day. Tax and bureaucratic cuts – good. Tariffs and bump stock bans – bad. The recent cave on the border omnibus – very bad. Most foreign policy moves (leaving Iran deal, leaving Paris accords, moving embassy to Jerusalem) – very good.

Unfortunately, it seems many on the left have been unwilling to recognize even the remotest possibility anything the President is doing is good. What’s worse is that some have been so aggressive in their desire to prove their point that they’ve pretended to be victims for the sake of getting their “victims’ perks” of love and affection from their peers while painting anyone wearing a MAGA hat as bigoted and hateful.

Thus, the anti-MAGA hate hoax was born and it’s been so prominent over the last two-and-a-half years, one must wonder how mainstream media and Democrats became so gullible that they fall for it every single time.

Andy Ngo at Quillette put together a comprehensive list of hate hoaxes that leftists have perpetrated to paint the President and his supporters as racists. It’s absolutely stunning when you see the magnitude of the hatred – THEIR hatred – that makes them willing to tell bald-faced lies just to prove the movement they oppose is as bad as they think it is.

I’ve had ideological disagreements with nearly every presidential candidate (let alone every President) since I became an adult. There’s nothing wrong with disagreement as long as one is willing to not be blinded in one direction or the other. There are plenty who blindly follow President Trump to approximately the same degree that supporters blindly followed President Obama. The herd mentality seems to have become the way of the political world in America for our last two presidents. But that blind devotion is simply an annoyance. The blind hatred that drives people to commit these hoaxes is far more dangerous.

It’s likely when the details are fully revealed regarding Jussie Smollett’s hate-hoax, it was driven more by a narcissistic desire to advance his career rather than pure hatred for the MAGA crowd or the President, but obviously the latter hatred played a role in his decision-making process. This type of action is never acceptable. We have enough outrage in America. There’s no need to manufacture even more for false reasons.

It’s time for the unhinged left to stop assuming every MAGA supporter is racist and start asking how the actions of those on their side of the political aisle drove massive amounts of people to support President Trump. Perhaps then, they’ll realize the hatred is coming mostly from them.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading
NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook

NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report