Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Supreme Court Schadenfreude: Mainstreaming the Left’s Demands for Gun confiscation.

Published

on

While many Liberty Grabbers hailed the mainstreaming of the subject of Gun Confiscation, many others realised it was a supreme mistake to do so.

While we on the Pro-liberty, Conservative-Right fully realise that the Left’s jihad against freedom is deadly serious.  However, there are moments when it’s duplicity makes for what can only be described as pure schadenfreude. The Left’s increasingly shrill attacks against Liberty, with particular emphasis on the basic human right of self-defence poses a dilemma for them. On the one hand, they have to rally the troops, keeping them focused on the prize of Gun Confiscation. Meanwhile, they have to vehemently deny their obvious goal of Gun Confiscation to everyone else.

So, given the Left’s two-faced war against liberty, it was quite amusing to see the reaction to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ New York Times piece demanding a repeal of the Second Amendment.

While many a Leftist hailed another coming out of the authoritarian closet, others were not very delighted with the prospect that their Gun grabbing goal having just become mainstream. Twitter sprung to life with the subject with three camps. Most of the Liberty defending Right condemned this gross example of Leftist overreach. While the enemies of Liberty on the Left either praised or tried to downplay this outing of their final solution.

The Liberty Grabbers were all a Twitter.

Joy Reid’s twitter feed had some choice conversations unmasking the national Socialist Left’s “negotiating strategy” – accept the ‘crumbs’ of your common sense human rights or lose it all:

Joy Reid@JoyAnnReid
27 Mar 2018
Retired Justice Stevens goes there.
ShilohFoxRoslin @ShilohFoxRoslin
27 Mar 2018
No, no, this is good Joy! Tell someone they stand a chance of losing all their guns and suddenly sensible gun control seems like the best idea they’ve ever heard. That’s how I see this going 🙂 Cause, suddenly, repealing seems actually possible. wild
Joy Reid@JoyAnnReid
Replying to @ShilohFoxRoslin

27 Mar 2018
As a negotiating strategy you are absolutely right.

SophieCT@SophieInCT
Replying to @brandon_r_horan @JoyAnnReid
27 Mar 2018
Nah. We tried to compromise but they wouldn’t. Now they lose everything.

The National Socialist Media realises this was a Supreme mistake.

But it was the articles reacting to this totalitarian coming out party of the former ‘Justice’ that turned the schadenfreeude up to eleven. First up was the Washington post with the piece entitled: John Paul Stevens’s supremely unhelpful call to repeal the Second Amendment

It bluntly made the point in it’s first sentence:

One of the biggest threats to the recovery of the Democratic Party these days is overreach.

A party that was once afraid of being saddled with supporting “government-run” health care is increasingly okay with the word “liberal” and even voted in droves for a self-described socialist in 2016. And its 2020 hopefuls are leading the leftward charge.

It is also infuriating enough that a party going after Liberty by depriving people of their most basic of human rights would dare label itself with the term ‘Liberal’. But that’s a discussion for another day.

The real ‘red meat’ came later:

But rarely do we see such an unhelpful, untimely and fanciful idea as the one put forward by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens.

In a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday, Stevens calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment. The move might as well be considered an in-kind contribution to the National Rifle Association, to Republicans’ efforts to keep the House and Senate in 2018, and to President Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. In one fell swoop, Stevens has lent credence to the talking point that the left really just wants to get rid of gun ownership and reasserted the need for gun-rights supporters to prevent his ilk from ever being appointed again (with the most obvious answer being: Vote Republican).

One can almost hear the Leftists whispering “icksnay on the gun ban ray” in reaction to a demand for the destruction of ‘reasonable’ human right of self-preservation.

Then there is this other example in the same tone from NBC news whose title says it all: How calls for a Second Amendment repeal could easily backfire for gun control advocates.
The author buries this deep in the piece after copious amounts of Liberty Control propaganda:

Thus, by framing the debate in terms of absolute repeal, Justice Stevens’s Times piece may therefore have the complete opposite of its intended effect — implying that common-sense reform proposals wouldn’t be constitutional today and satisfying the narrative that many gun rights supporters have been using to oppose those proposals on policy grounds.

The phrase ‘No kidding’ comes to mind. The fact is we oppose their ‘common-sense reform(s)’ because they are stepping-stones to gun confiscation. The Liberty grabbers obsess over Intergalactic Background Checks because they are the precursors to registration followed by CONFISCATION. That fact should be plain to everyone.

The Takeaway

It is easy to see why the national Socialist-Left has to balance on the razor’s edge of duplicity on this subject. They at once have to deny that they are demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation.

While this is a deadly serious game they are playing, one can only laugh when they quibble amongst themselves on how to best lie about the subject. Perhaps that is why those of us on the Conservative-Right find so much enjoyment at the Left’s discomfiture. It is always supremely satisfying to see Liars caught in their web of deceit, foretelling what exactly will happen to those who cannot further their agenda without such practices.

The Biblical phase: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Has never had so much relevance.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Not even close: Socialism isn’t about social media, being social or ‘sharing’

Published

on

By

Not even close Socialism isnt about social media being social or sharing

Leftists would like their label for organised evil to mean something other than subjugation and mass murder.

We tend to avoid making light of America’s favourite socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [aka ‘AOC’] from the rationale that when someone is making a mistake it’s best to just get out of their way. However in this case, this is not about the women whose antics will cause her ideology of organised evil to be laughed from the pantheon of practical governmental forms. This is about an adorable 8-year-old and perfect her impression of Ms. Cortez, specifically the point that socialism isn’t about being ‘social’, ‘social media’ or ‘sharing’.

For those who haven’t seen this viral video, it’s a perfect rendition of ‘AOC’ and her ruminations on climate change and socialism.

In light of this adorable impression, we will take this occasion to eviscerate what seems to be a very odd understanding of some basic words on the part of the National Socialist-Left.

Socialism is not about being ‘social’

No doubt this partially arose from certain elements who like to weaponize words to maximum effect. First principles hold that politics can be considered to be of the two basic forms: Individualism or Collectivism. With priority given to either the Individual or the collective.

Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians favour the rights and freedoms of the Individual. Certain civil Liberties such as the common sense human right of self-defence stems from this first principle.
Even though it may at first blush seem counterintuitive, the individual striving to improve themselves and their lot always tends to do the same for everyone else. As stated in The Wealth of Nations:

‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.’ – Adam Smith

Conversely speaking, Collectivism is the other basic form whereby the group is favoured over the Individual. In point of fact, since a group is merely an arbitrary aggregation of individuals with no true form, the result is that it cannot have any true civil Liberties. This is exemplified by the treatment of the common sense human right of self-defence. Whereby the principle ‘collective’ rights is applied, meaning there is no Liberty in this regard.

Individualism is vastly superior to Collectivism

Collectivists like to phrase their construct of one of the labels of their base ideology as simply adding the suffix ‘ism’ to their idea of ‘social’ or group dynamics to make ‘social+ism’. Even though this word has come to signify the worst excesses in authoritarianism.

The problem is that when the ‘rights’ of group are prioritized, the rights of the individual disappear. Despite the window dressing of supposedly being ‘Liberal’, the Collectivist-Left only sees the group as having importance. Individuals become disposable to the whims of the collective. This is how the Left terms idea of self-defence as unimportant and how they end up will millions of dead individuals.

Socialism is not about ‘sharing’

Despite being extremely late to the party of collectivist ideological thought, Karl Marx did imbue one of the lines that epitomises it’s base principles with the saying: ‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’

Sharing has to be a voluntary process. Such is not the case with socialism where that ‘From each according to his abilities’ is done at the point of a gun. This is why the Collectivist-Left obsesses over the disarming of individuals with Liberty control aka ‘Gun Reform’.

The Takeaway

Leftists love to exploit the language to hide their true base ideological intent. This is why they use words like ‘socialism’ or ‘Liberal’. They cannot be honest about what they truly want: control over everyone.

Thus, they have to pretend that ‘socialism’ means being social or sharing instead of an ideology that is truly organised evil at its core.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Possible hate crime draws yawns from media as Oghaleoghene Atuno allegedly targets white children with vehicle

Published

on

Alleged hate crime draws yawns from media as Oghaleoghene Atuno allegedly targets white children wit

Have you heard the news report about a 21-year-old African-American male, Oghaleoghene Atuno, who targeted two white children with his vehicle? Unless you’re watching brief clips on local Denver news, you probably haven’t.

Atuno has been charged with attempted murder and child abuse while his alleged victims have been hospitalized after the brutal attack. Surveillance video shows him circling a cul-de-sac several times near Falcon Middle School in Aurora, Colorado, before driving his vehicle onto the sidewalk to strike the two children, age 11 and 12. One of the young boys, Josh Piazza, is still in the hospital with a fractured skull.

The circumstantial evidence seems to point to this being a textbook example of a hate crime. Atuno appeared to be circling the cul-de-sac near a school searching for a victim. When he spotted two Caucasian children, he drove his vehicle towards them onto the sidewalk. After hitting them, he drove off immediately. He claims he didn’t know the victims and his reason for fleeing the scene immediately was because he was scared, according to police.

Attempted murder against children he didn’t know after circling a cul-de-sac several times near a middle school – the math seems to add up to only a few possible conclusions and hate crime would be the most obvious. Yet this isn’t getting any attention from the media and prosecutors have thus far declined to use the “hate crime” tag for enhanced sentencing should he be found guilty.

Hate crimes of all types are hideous. When a person’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation are used as determining factors prompting a crime against them, it’s a hate crime. Whether or not Atuno was motivated by racial hatred is currently unknown, but we may never know because it is not being treated as a potential hate crime by prosecutors or law enforcement. Imagine if a Caucasian man had circled around an African-American neighborhood searching for targets before running over two African-American children. The press would be clamoring all over itself about it being a hate crime.

As our nation becomes increasingly divided, it’s necessary that we put an end to bigotry from every side. Caucasians are not immune from being victims of hate crimes by law, but media narratives refuse to accept it as a possibility.

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Sign the petition demanding an investigation of the investigators

Published

on

Sign the petition demanding an investigation of the investigators

Now that Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 election has been completed and the investigation’s report has been released, we have more questions than we have answers.

Why was it started in the first place? It seems circular reasoning and opposition research were the only pieces of “evidence” used to justify extensive spying on the Trump campaign and the subsequent investigation. This does not clear the threshold of viable suspicion necessary for FISA warrants and clearly was not an appropriate starting point upon which to launch an investigation.

Why was it allowed to continue for so long? The report indicates early on, the investigation saw it was extremely unlikely they would find evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. Moreover, the report demonstrates the Russians were acting of their own accord to “hack” the elections, but were unsuccessful in generating enough manipulative propaganda to sway a significant chunk of voters.

Were political motivations at play? At this point, the answer seems obvious. From President Obama’s administration to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to left-leaning elements within the FBI itself, it’s conspicuous that attempts to not only manufacture wrongdoing by candidate Trump but also to hide wrongdoing by candidate Clinton were in full effect.

Two years and $30 million in taxpayer dollars should have yielded answers. It did not. The reason isn’t that there were no answers to be found. It’s that they were looking in the wrong places. It’s time to look in the right places. Sign this petition.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report