Connect with us

Democrats

The list of Leftists demanding gun confiscation – Updated to Sep 2018

Published

on

The list of Leftists demanding gun confiscation Updated to Sep 2018

Once again proving that the Liberty grabber claim that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ is a lie.

Leftists Lie about their obvious goal of gun confiscation to get people to accept the unlawful control over their private property that will lead to gun confiscation. They do this by denying that they are demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation. These lists are important in that they clearly illustrate that these denials are just bold-faced Lies.

Simply ordering gun owners to turn over their property is the easiest form of confiscation. This is facilitated with lists of gun owners gleaned from Intergalactic Background Checks [Enhanced, Universal, etc.] or registration. This is why the Leftist Liberty grabbers obsess over these critical steps to their final solution for the gun problem. Please note that this is an abridged list since there are numerous euphemisms for confiscation such as bans based on the use of open-ended phrases [“Military Style” or “Assault Weapons”].

May 2018

Esquire: Okay, Now I Actually Do Want To Take Your Guns

Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

April 2018

Observer: Is It Time to Repeal the Second Amendment?

Vox: Why an assault weapons ban can’t address America’s gun problem

Miami Herald Repeal the Second Amendment — it’s not a crazy idea

Emma González [March for our Lives]: Removing the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society, instituting thorough background checks and mandatory waiting periods (and raising the buying age and banning the production of high-capacity magazines) are the ways to stop shootings in America.

March 2018

Paste Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots

USA Today: Repealing the Second Amendment isn’t easy but it’s what March for Our Lives students need

New York Times – John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

The Charlotte News: Ban military-style assault weapons for the sake of our children

Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control “taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”

NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom [Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]

February 2018

Maine Voices: It’s time for a gun abolition movement
We need to stand up to the NRA and push for what is so desperately needed: a complete ban on firearms.

Mercury News – Eugene Robinson
Robinson: Arming teachers is absurd — ban military-style assault rifles

PSMag: Repeal the Second Amendment Already

The Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns

La Times: No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun

It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.

Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment

New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment

November 2017

Splinter news: BAN GUNS

Redhawks Online: Guns must go

Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons

News-Press – USA Today Editorial Board: Renew ban on military-style assault weapons

October 2017

Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]

Eugene Robinson: Gun control should include buyback program like Australia’s

Washington Post: President Trump, end this ‘American carnage’.
[Members of The Washington Post Editorial Board]

The Week: Ban guns

New York Times: The Cancer in the Constitution

New Boston Post-Connecticut Professor: Repeal the Second Amendment

The New York Times: Repeal the Second Amendment

Plan A Magazine: Ban Guns. Amend the Constitution.

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

Forget about ‘gun control,’ let’s repeal the Second Amendment

Prospect magazine: Dear America: it’s time to grow up and ban guns

August 2017

Mike the gun guy [A Magazine With News and Notes From Both Sides About Guns.]
What Guns To Be Safe? Get Rid Of The Guns.

December 2016

Huffington Post: Domestic Disarmament, Not ‘Gun Control’

June 2016

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

Washington Post – Eugene Robinson: Assault weapons must be banned in America

January 2016

W. Kamau Bell [CNN]: I want Obama to take away your guns

Huffington post: Can’t We Just Put the Damn Guns Down?

Anderson Cooper:”Speaking only for myself, watching Obama get repeatedly accused of wanting to take people’s guns away makes me sort of wish he’d just do something to earn that accusation. May as well!”

The Daily Beast: President Obama Isn’t Taking People’s Guns—But Maybe He Should.

December 2015

New Republic: It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

The New York Times: End the Gun Epidemic in America [First Front Page Editorial In 95 Years]
This editorial published on A1 in the Dec. 5 edition of The New York Times. It is the first time an editorial has appeared on the front page since 1920.

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

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”

Vox: Becoming a gun-free society would be hard. But we should still try.

Daily Kos: Effective Gun Control – A National Semi-Auto Ban

Washington Post: A gun-free society

Baltimore Sun: Repeal the Second Amendment

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.”

September 2015

Grieving mom of two slain sons: Get rid of the guns!

January 2015

Tallahassee Democrat – Stop the insanity: Ban guns

June 2014

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

April 2013

Huffington Post: Gun Control? We Need Domestic Disarmament

February 2013

America Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment

January 2013

New York Times: [John Howard] I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.

Vanity Fair – Kurt Eichenwald: Let’s Repeal the Second Amendment

December 2012

Daily Kos: How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

Detroit Metro Times: Ban all guns, now

Opinionator – New York Times: Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough

House Dem: ‘Turn in your guns’

Huffington Post: It’s Not About the Constitution [Getting rid of the Second Amendment]

Eugene Robinson: First, Get Rid of the Guns

Economist The gun control that works: no guns

July 2012

Huffington Post: Get Rid of the Damn Guns

Mar 2012

Yes conservatives, we want to take away your guns…

February 2011

Arizona Daily Star: Reinstate ban on military-style assault weapons

April 2007

Salon: Repeal the Second Amendment

December 1993

La Times – Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns : More firearms won’t make America safer–they will only accelerate and intensify the heartache and bloodshed

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Gene Ralno

    October 6, 2018 at 11:14 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.

    On the other hand, they continue to hammer for universal background checks that are impossible to regulate without universal registration. 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 *

Democrats

As Bernie Sanders fades, 3 leftists (quietly) vie to pick up his mantle

Published

on

As Bernie Sanders fades 3 leftists quietly vie to pick up his mantle

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) just turned 77-years-old last month. The Democratic-Socialist movement, which he essentially brought into the mainstream and helped make popular following his 2016 presidential campaign, is made up of young, enthusiastic leftists. They need new leadership. Bernie can’t be that guy.

Two-years removed from his rise to prominence, his people are already searching for successors. Nobody’s saying it openly and Sanders still enjoys a great deal of support, but his inability to endorse leftists into primary victories showed he still couldn’t beat the Democratic establishment even after their stunning 2016 loss. But the real nail in Bernie’s presidential coffin was not endorsing soon-to-be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He picked losers and failed to recognize a surprise winner.

It should come as no surprise that Ocasio-Cortez is unwilling to endorse him for a 2020 presidential run.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t endorsing Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid

https://nypost.com/2018/10/18/ocasio-cortez-isnt-endorsing-bernie-sanders-2020-bid/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow“She’ll see what the field looks like,” Corbin Trent, Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, told Politico. “She’s focused on 2018, [Bernie’s] focused on 2018. We’re all focused on 2018.”

Sanders did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez in her stunning primary defeat in June of longtime Queens political boss Rep. Joe Crowley.

Nobody on the left seems willing to flatly admit what most of them already know. Sanders is nothing more than a symbol now. He’s the ideological leader of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party, much like Barry Goldwater was for the conservative wing of the Republican party. He lit the fire. Now it’s time for his successors to step up. Who will it be?

Before we discuss who’s going to be the next Bernie Sanders, let’s talk about who isn’t. Despite the far left getting all the buzz, the Democratic establishment of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama (sorry leftists, yes, he was and is part of the Democratic establishment) still holds sway on the direction of the party. They’re more than willing to tap into the excitement of the progressive movement and get Democratic Socialists to vote for Democratic mainstream candidates, but they’re smart enough to recognize if the far-left gets their way, the party and probably the nation will crumble.

These establishment types will not pick up Bernie’s mantle:

  • Joe Biden – He’s the current frontrunner, but I seriously doubt he’ll run. Why would he? He doesn’t really want to be President and would be 80 by the time his first term came to a close. Regardless, he’s more moderate that Clinton and will not be the next Bernie.
  • Elizabeth Warren – Despite wanting to be the next Bernie and having the progressive credentials to match his far-leftist rhetoric, her star is already fading fast. Democrats and mainstream media are trying to pretend like her DNA debacle never happened, but her competitors will be sure to remind the world of her horrible judgment. Wanting it and being accepted by the fragile far-left are two different things. They won’t turn on her as a Senator but they won’t let her be Bernie.
  • Beto O’Rourke – His star-power will fade when he loses to Ted Cruz. If he’s somehow able to win, then we’ll have to watch what he does in the first year of his term as Senator to see if he can be the guy. As of now, he’s a MSNBC contributor in the making following his loss.
  • Michael Bloomberg – A rich old white guy might have brought the socialist movement into the spotlight, but a super-rich old white guy can’t pick up the mantle.
  • Michael Avenatti – LOL. No.
  • Eric Holder – If anyone on this list could sneak into the Democratic Socialist camp, it’s Holder. He is progressive enough and speaks the language of socialism, but he’s also closely tied to the establishment.

With those non-Bernies out of the way, let’s look at the three most likely candidates to lead the far-left in 2020. You’ll notice they’re all Senators, a la Barack Obama’s path. I don’t see a governor or mayor who has a legitimate chance of being a socialist hero. Andrew Cuomo and Eric Garcetti are interesting prospects, but not high enough on the radar at this time.

That leaves private citizens, some of whom could be the next Bernie if they choose to throw their names in the hat. Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney stand out, but we won’t put them on this list until they actually get political.

One thing to note is that they’ll all be cozy with Sanders until the time is right. None of them have the street credibility they’ll need to challenge Sanders directly until he’s ready to embrace one or more of them on his own. Quietly, they’ll be pitching him on why they’re the right person to continue what he started. They might even offer him a nice cabinet position like Treasury Secretary in exchange for his coveted endorsement.

The next Bernie will likely be one of these three Senators:

Kamala Harris

The California Senator is the obvious choice. She has built up the most progressive voting record in her short time on Capitol Hill and definitely talks the talk of socialism.

If any socialist has a real shot at the White House, it’s Harris.

Kirsten Gillibrand

The funny part about Gillibrand is that she’s been considered a moderate in the past. Some even called her a “conservative Democrat” when she was in the House because she represented a red district of New York. Once she became a Senator, her true colors came out.

Deep down, Gillibrand is among the most socialist Senators there is. Her voting record is actually to the left of Sanders, according to Progressive Punch. She is likable by the far left while still holding sway over moderates. If her name-recognition increases in the next year, she could be a real contender.

Cory Booker

Spartacus has problems with his image at times, but there’s no doubt he could easily pick up Bernie’s mantle. He’s currently stuck in the middle trying to be everything to every progressive up and down the scale, but when push comes to shove he can be the socialist he wants to be.

Whether or not he picks up Bernie’s mantle will be determined by how well the previous two listed socialists do. If he’s ahead of them and his primary competitors are to his right, then he’ll drift towards the center knowing he’ll end up with Bernie’s people anyway. If he’s running against stiff competition from Gillibrand and/or Harris, he’ll try to lurch to their left to steal their thunder.

2020 is a make-or-break election for socialists. If they fail to get their choice as the nominee for a second straight presidential election, it could be enough to bury their horrible ideology as fringe leftist junk. Then again, it could make them double down.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Left vs Right: Is there really a legitimacy crisis in the courts?

Published

on

Left vs Right Is there really a legitimacy crisis in the courts

The 9th Circuit Court has some vacancies and President Trump has made nominations to fill those holes. This bypass of traditional norms comes after a Supreme Court confirmation process that deviated from many norms. Senator Feinstein was undoubtedly culpable for that. In recent weeks, the Left talks a lot about the legitimacy of the courts. In fact, to them the confirmations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh represent a crisis for the legitimacy of our nation’s highest court. Michael Tomaski at the New York Times writes:

And if the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh soon, the vote is likely to fall along similar lines, meaning that we will soon have two Supreme Court justices who deserve to be called “minority-majority”: justices who are part of a five-vote majority on the bench but who were nominated and confirmed by a president and a Senate who represent the will of a minority of the American people.

See, Tomaski doesn’t seem to realize, in his calculations, that the 17th Amendment wasn’t always a thing. The Senate was never intended to represent the will of the people. It was intended to represent the will of the states. Therefore is metric of legitimacy is entirely unfounded in our nation’s history, a complete creation of a leftist melting down over Kavanaugh. He continues to implode on this these premises.:

But I implore you to take a moment to be angry about all this, too. This is a severe legitimacy crisis for the Supreme Court.

The court, as Professor McMahon notes, was intended never to stray far from the mainstream of American political life. The fact that justices represented that mainstream and were normally confirmed by lopsided votes gave the court’s decisions their legitimacy. It’s also why past chief justices worked to avoid 5-4 decisions on controversial matters: They wanted Americans to see that the court was unified when it laid down a major new precedent.

But now, in an age of 5-4 partisan decisions, we’re on the verge of having a five-member majority who figure to radically rewrite our nation’s laws. And four of them will have been narrowly approved by senators representing minority will.

But of course, this talk is hardly the result of Kavanaugh whom they will paint a vehemently partisan judge. Neil Gorsuch is the thief on the stolen seat, and Merrick Garland is an angel perfectly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Nevermind that Merrick Garland failed a basic reading comprehension in DC v Heller. Trump and Cocaine Mitch defiled the norms, the latest norm being blue-slipping.

Initial Story

Fox News: Trump snubs Feinstein, Harris to nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit

President Trump is plowing ahead to fill three vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, brushing aside Democratic resistance to nominate conservative judges.

Presidents traditionally work with senators from judicial nominees’ home state — in this case, California — to put forward judicial picks. They often seek what’s known as a “blue slip,” or an opinion from those senators.

But in a snub to California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, the White House announced Wednesday that Trump had nominated Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (all from the Golden State, and reportedly all members of the conservative Federalist Society) to the influential circuit. The court, with a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against the travel ban and limits on funding to “sanctuary cities.”

GOP critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Any working relationship is likely only to have soured further after Harris and Feinstein led the charge on the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In particular, Trump and Republicans accused Feinstein of withholding information about an allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh until after the hearings were over. Both Feinstein and Harris voted against Kavanaugh’s nomination, joined by all but one Democratic senator.

Solutions of the Left

Fake Conservative of the Washington Post Jennifer Rubin has this much to say about “salvaging” the Supreme Court.

In some respect, the fix for the Supreme Court is the same as the fix for our politics — leveling a right-wing populist party that abhors democratic norms and building a center-left to center-right coalition. (Some structural reforms such as ranked voting, eliminating gerrymandering and automatic voter registration would help.)

Basically, get rid of Conservatism. But at least she knows that 17th Amendment exists. This is a simplistic petty fantasy of a solution. Then there is the age old progressive trick to stack the courts. What failed under FDR, is now table talk once again. Socialist online publication, Jacobinmag, writes an apocalyptic defense of court packing. Note: he thinks the New Deal worked.

And this is the important point: with union density near an all-time low and climate catastrophe on the horizon, future lawmakers will need tools even more robust than what FDR was able to get through — think a Green NIRA on steroids. A handful of justices pulled from Federalist Society debating clubs can’t and shouldn’t get in the way of a more democratic and sustainable economy.

A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past. With inequality and human rights abuses spiraling upward and justices making it all worse, the time to begin mainstreaming an enlarged Court is now.

Ultimately, the Left’s arguments for court packing openly admit that they do not care for the process of interpreting the law or the intent of the US Constitution. They see the court as a means to protect their agenda. Take court packing argument from The Outline:

We cannot lose sight of one simple point. We — those of us left of center, who believe that the role of the courts should be to protect the weak from the powerful and not the other way around — are right and conservatives are wrong.

The New Republic isn’t as petty but they believe that the court should have a more democratic representation

Court-packing is bad, but allowing an entrenched majority on the Supreme Court to represent a minority party that refuses to let Democratic governments govern would not be acceptable or democratically legitimate, either.

Final Thoughts

The 9th Circuit Court has a terrible batting average with when it comes to the Supreme Court upholding their rulings. And that batting average is sure to crumble even lower seeing that the next SCOTUS session has multiple cases where the 9th Circuit Court is in conflict with the rulings of other appellate courts. If any court isn’t legitimate, it’s the ultra left 9th Circuit Court. Yet the issue of the Supreme Court reveals a substantially different view of the Court’s duties. The Left, dating back to FDR, believes that the Court’s job is to uphold their agenda. Don’t take my word for it, take theirs. In contrast, Conservatives believe that the court should uphold the Constitution in its original form. These are the foundations for which one from either side would determine a legitimacy crisis.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Ben Shapiro’s reaction to Michael Avenatti’s video is perfect

Published

on

Ben Shapiros reaction to Michael Avenattis video is perfect

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro normally uses his intellect and debate skills to make leftists look bad. He calls out their hypocrisy, lack of logic, and disdain for America in ways that few can match.

Sometimes, he just lets leftists  do all the talking, which usually makes his point.

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who represents Stormy Daniels and Julie Swetnick, took to the airwaves to express his displeasure with President Trump for calling his client a “horseface.” Shapiro couldn’t stop laughing at the horrid display of silliness by someone who wants to be President of the United States.

This guy is cold and comical. He’s the perfect nominee for Democrats in 2020. When poor judgment mixes with leftist triggering, you get #horseface-opposition videos like these. Trump vs Avenatti in 2020 would be epic.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report