Connect with us

Democrats

Guns aren’t the problem

Published

on

Guns arent the problem

The tragedy in California proves Liberty Control does not work, this is what we need to do to actually solve the problem.

We were told that Intergalactic background checks, gun registration requirements, gun confiscation laws, a 10-day waiting period on gun purchases and other odious restrictions on freedom would keep everyone safe. The Liberty grabbers solemnly promised that these commonsense ‘Gun Safety’ laws would bring an end to mass shootings. Never mind that as soon as these were passed, they backtracked, parroting the talking point that each was a ‘first step’ while promptly forgetting they ever existed.

California already has the nation’s strictest gun laws and yet in the wake of a mass murder tragedy in a bastion of restrictions on freedom, the Liberty grabber Left is doubling down looking to expand Intergalactic background checks, gun registration requirements, gun confiscation laws.

But if those laws didn’t keep anyone safe, why bother expanding their reach? Unless the true purpose of pushing new controls on Liberty isn’t about solving anything but rather expanding the Left’s power over the people.

It should be patently obvious that Leftist attempts at Liberty control do not work.

The plain fact is that we should see a decrease in ‘gun violence’ in places with strict controls on Liberty. This has never been the case, given that if it did actually work somewhere, the Liberty grabber Left would never stop talking about it. The best they can offer are selective statistics or to simply ignore the failures of their agenda. Erich Pratt in USA Today and Jacob Sullum in Reason magazine both pointed out that the mass murder in California this was another tragic failure of the obsession with Liberty Control of the Socialist-Left.

Leftists have convinced themselves that they have the moral high ground in their various causes of ‘saving the planet’ or ‘protecting the children’ thus they feel righteous in their mentality of the ‘Ends justifying the means’. So if they have to lie a ‘little’ bit, that’s perfectly acceptable – to them. If they have to pretend that mass murder tragedies only take place in the states or faking the statistics on mass shootings, that’s okay because they are ‘protecting the children’.

In some ways that cavalier attitude towards the truth highlights the underlying issue that is the heart of the problem. The Left’s flexible morality is the very reason these tragedies are taking place.

Proving that gun confiscation will not solve the problem.

Before any Liberty grabber Leftists parrot the tired old line that ‘No one is talking gun confiscation’, a reminder that our research has developed a list of over 70 instances in the past few years that talk about this very ‘solution’. Please don’t insult our intelligence or memories with the repetition of that outright lie.

It should be obvious that the Socialist-Left has been grooming the law to their ultimate goal of gun confiscation. Their current obsession of the otherwise useless tool of Intergalactic [Universal or enhanced] Background Checks is a prime example. These serve no other purpose than as a stepping stone to gun registration followed by gun confiscation, their writings have admitted to this fact.

What would happen if the Left were to get their ‘gun-free’ fantasy world?

Let us diverge from this dissertation for a moment and conduct a thought experiment on what would be the result of the Left’s final solution to the gun problem.

What would happen if we had an unlimited supply of pixel dust and unicorn droppings and we could put in place what the Left has always wanted: a gunfree’ Utopia. Imagine a magic wand emblazoned with an Everytown logo that would instantly rid the world every firearm possessed by the law abiding faster a boating accident on Chatfield lake.

Since this is a Leftist fantasy world, the ‘law’ of the magic wand would do what no other law has done – have the criminals comply as well. Just for good measure it would also take away every gun in every government’s inventory. The miraculous result would be a fantasy world free of firearms, unlike anything ever seen, because laws don’t ever work on the lawless.

What would be the result of this ‘Gun-free’ Utopia?

Leftists have the farcical idea that if no one had a gun, no one would need a gun. The problem is that evil can always fashion a weapon out of normally encountered raw materials. Those of evil intent would simply revert to the weapons used before firearms arrived on the scene. Producing edged or blunt force weapons out of readily available stone, metal, glass, wood or modern materials such as plastic, ceramic or hard candy. This wouldn’t even ‘cut down on the carnage’ since the innocent would be disadvantaged by strength or skill. Criminals would be fashioning knives and clubs as they do now in the ‘gun free’ realms of most penitentiaries.

It should be patently obvious that even if guns could be eliminated from society, evil would find another way to kill the innocent. If not guns, then edged weapons. If not edged weapons, then blunt force weapons. If not blunt force weapons, then chemical explosives. If not edged chemical explosives, then vehicular weapons. On and on and on…. The focus on inanimate objects is a fools errand, we must concentrate our gaze upon our society’s moral constructs – or lack thereof.

So, how do we solve this problem?

All of this should make it clear that more restrictions on freedom, including gun confiscation will not solve anything. They will make the situation worse – far worse – than it’s current state.

The only rational solutions would be to remove the restrictions on freedom and restore societies moral underpinnings. The first item would merely be restoring the common sense human right of self-preservation. In other words, get rid of the odious controls on Liberty and so-called ‘Gun-Free’ zones. There are an estimated 400 – 600 million guns in the hands of 120 Million gun owners with trillions of rounds of ammunition, as the saying goes there if they were a problem, everyone would know it.

By definition, criminals do not obey the law and yet Leftists think that a brand new law will reverse this trend. Or it could be that they don’t care about the actions of criminals since they consider them to be the ‘downtrodden’ so they are ‘justified’ in anything they do. Either that or their power is more important than everyone’s safety.

Restoring the world’s moral underpinnings.

Solving a problem always involves careful, unemotional analysis of its true cause. Simply focusing on what feels good or appears to be a solution, but is not will only makes things worse – far worse.

Repeating the same ineffective actions is not only insane, but dangerous as well. The current focus on guns hasn’t done anything to mitigate the problem of societal violence. It has only made the situation worse, exemplified by the recent mass murder in the people’s republic of California.

We have no other choice than to turn our focus to something other than inanimate objects.

Evil will always find a way to kill, eliminate guns and it will easily find another way. Multiple-shot or repeating firearms have been around for centuries. While these mass murder tragedies are a distinct phenomena of only the past few decades. It clearly isn’t the fault of inanimate objects, but of those wielding them.

So what has changed to cause some to conduct these horrific attacks?

The past few decades have seen a steady degradation of morality. This is the ‘glue’ that holds society together. Consideration of any other action than restoring our moral underpinning will only result in more death and destruction.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

The great ideological divide in the Democratic Party is artificial

Published

on

The great ideological divide in the Democratic Party is artificial

Since the midterm elections, we’ve seen some pretty crazy things happening in the Democratic Party. You have a small revolt against Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with a handful of Democrats in Congress opposing her ascension to Speaker of the House. There’s a freshman Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is already trying to get her followers to run against sitting Democrats in Congress. Then, there’s the posturing by Democrats wanting to run for President in 2020.

In all three circumstances, it’s the Democratic Establishment that is old and out of touch versus the young, aware new Democrats. Sometimes these new Democrats call themselves Democratic Socialists. Sometimes they lay claim to the Democratic Party as a whole.

The Establishment is supposed to be the “moderate” wing of the party while the Democratic Socialists are the far left. Here’s the problem with that notion. They both say pretty much the exact same things. There are nuances in how they say it, but the end results are the same. For example, they both promote healthcare for all. It doesn’t matter whether some call it “Medicare-for-All” and others don’t give it a name. When the chips are all on the table, they’ll end up in the same place.

Healthcare is just one example of top priorities listed by both “sides” of the Democratic Party. On gun control, they’re in lockstep. The only difference between the “moderates” and the far-leftists is the number of times they say they “respect the 2nd Amendment” in their speeches about the varying ways they want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

There are a few issues in which the money flowing to the Democratic Establishment keeps them quiet while the radical leftists go all out. Climate change, for example, can be easily misconstrued as an issue with a unified position within the party, but it’s far from it. Establishment Democrats push for a light version of environmental solutions that will make them appear tough on carbon without harming their benefactors. The left-wing takes it up a few dozen notches, calling for an end of fossil fuels in a decade.

But the environment is a small issue, despite the attention given to it by the leftists. I don’t mean the issue of climate change and the attacks on the energy industry by leftists are insignificant. I mean it’s a small divide between the opposing sides within the Democratic Party. One could be fighting the oil companies while the other is owned by the oil companies and they can still sit together for lunch in the Capitol Hill cafeteria.

Some would argue the Republicans are the exact same way, and to some extent this is true. But the ideological divide that separates the very small minority of true conservatives is much wider for one big reason. Establishment Democrats and far leftists are in total agreement that government needs to grow, especially at the federal level. Establishment Republicans agree. True conservatives vehemently disagree.

Unfortunately, there are so few limited-government Republicans in DC that it hasn’t really made an impact. Even under President Trump, budgets are through the roof, and while he’s cutting bureaucracy, more is being added in its wake.

This is important to understand because it means the leftward lurch we’re seeing in the Democratic Party is very different from the conservative push that spawned following the passage of Obamacare. Where conservatives failed at pulling the party to the right, leftists will succeed in pulling their party to the left.

Today and onward beyond 2020, we’ll see two things happen. The first is what we’re witnessing today with the artificial chasm forming between the old Democratic guard and the new leftist ideologues. This will grow as we see presidential hopefuls jockeying for the Bernie Sanders mantle. In fact, they’re going to try to out-Bernie the Vermont Senator himself. We’re already seeing Senators Cory Booker and Kamala Harris pull to the left of the party on the First Step Act. Their reason: it doesn’t release enough convicts back onto the streets.

Then, there’s Eric “Nukem” Stalwell. He’s unofficially launching his presidential campaign by threatening to confiscate guns.

This will continue until the 2020 Democratic nomination is decided. That’s when we’ll see stage two. This is where it gets dangerous.

The second thing that will happen is the bridging of the chasm in the party. Republicans solved it by bringing “conservatives” over to the mushy middle, making them embrace Establishment concepts for the sake of being practical. It’s why the ideologues won in 2015 by passing a clean Obamacare repeal, but the Establishment won in 2017 by pushing forward every Obamacare action they could think of without even considering a clean repeal. They only acted conservative when they knew President Obama would veto it.

Democrats will do the opposite. The old guard will see Ocasio-Cortez, Harris, Booker, Beto O’Rourke, and other far leftists doing so well with the base. Then, they’ll embrace them. Those who are too pragmatic to leave the Establishment will be shocked when they realize the Establishment merges with the far-leftists. When the chasm disappears and the dust settles, the Democratic Party will be firmly controlled by Democratic-Socialists.

This is why the divide is artificial. They’re not stupid. The Establishment sees the writing on the wall. They’ll fight it for as long as they can without making enemies, but they are well aware that their choices are to adapt or get booted.

As far to the left as Democrats seem today, we haven’t seen them fully unleash their lunacy. The moderate Establishment that gave them candidate Hillary Clinton is rapidly being replaced by the far-leftists. Democratic-Socialists are going mainstream.

Continue Reading

Democrats

In threat to Pelosi, 16 Dems say they’ll back new leadership

Published

on

In threat to Pelosi 16 Dems say theyll back new leadership

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sixteen Democrats who’ve opposed Nancy Pelosi’s quest to become speaker released a letter Monday saying they will vote for “new leadership” when the House picks its leaders in January, underscoring a significant threat to her effort to lead her party’s House majority in the next Congress.

The letter’s release suggests that rather than spending the next six weeks focusing on a fresh agenda to present to Americans, House Democrats could be consumed with a bitter and attention-grabbing internal leadership fight.

The battle pits the party’s largely liberal and diverse membership backing Pelosi, D-Calif., against a small group of mostly moderate male lawmakers. Of the 16 Democrats who signed the letter — which stops short of explicitly saying they will vote for an opposing candidate for speaker — all but two are men: Reps. Kathleen Rice of New York and California’s Linda Sanchez.

“We promised to change the status quo, and we intend to deliver on that promise,” the authors wrote, referring to campaign pledges by a number of Democratic candidates. “Therefore, we are committed to voting for new leadership in both our Caucus meeting and on the House Floor.”

Pelosi has activated an aggressive campaign for the job involving House colleagues, prominent outside Democrats and party-aligned interest groups. Her office distributed endorsements Monday from nine House Democrats who are military veterans and UnidosUS, a Hispanic civil rights organization.

Known as a precise vote counter with a keen sense of her caucus’ leanings, Pelosi is aided by the lack of a declared opponent and many weeks during which she can dangle choice committee assignments, rules changes and other goodies to help attract support.

“Leader Pelosi remains confident in her support among Members and Members-elect,” spokesman Drew Hammill said in a written statement. He said 94 percent of House Democrats declined to sign the letter, though Pelosi opponents said they expect others who didn’t sign to vote against her.

Though the mavericks’ numbers represent a handful of the 232 House Democrats elected, plus five races still undecided, they could still garner enough opposition to thwart her.

Pelosi seems certain to have enough support to become her party’s nominee for speaker when House Democrats vote by secret ballot on Nov. 28. She will need only a majority of Democrats in that contest.

But when the full House elects its new leaders Jan. 3, the speaker will need a majority 218 votes, assuming that no one votes “present” or misses the vote and Republicans oppose her en masse, as seems likely. At 232 seats, Pelosi could afford to lose just 14 Democrats and still become speaker.

The rebels’ letter to their Democratic colleagues praises Pelosi, 78, as “a historic figure” who helped win major victories. Pelosi was speaker from 2007 through 2010 when Democrats held the majority and has been the party’s leader since 2003.

“We also recognize that in this recent election, Democrats ran and won on a message of change,” they wrote. “Our majority came on the backs of candidates who said that they would support new leadership because voters in hard-won districts, and across the country, want to see real change in Washington.”

Pelosi’s critics say the party’s long-serving top leaders must make room for younger members. They say years of Republican ads portraying her as an out-of-touch liberal have made it hard for moderate Democrats to win in swing districts.

Pelosi allies counter that the party just won House control with their biggest gain of seats since the 1974 post-Watergate election. Many bristle at dumping her at a time when President Donald Trump and the #MeToo movement have helped attract female candidates and voters to the party.

Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland has been No. 2 House Democrat since 2003 and South Carolina’s Jim Clyburn has been No. 3 since 2007. Both are in their late 70s and are running, unopposed so far, for those posts again.

Of the letter’s signees, five are incoming House freshmen or hope to be. Two of them — Anthony Brindisi of New York and Ben McAdams of Utah — are in races in which The Associated Press has yet to call a winner.

Pelosi critics assert there are more Democrats who’ve not signed the letter who are prepared to vote against Pelosi. That includes Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio, who’s said she’s considering running for speaker.

Trump has tweeted his respect for Pelosi and offered to round up GOP votes to help elect her speaker. Pelosi’s office has said she will win with Democratic votes, and it seems a stretch to expect Republicans to help elect her speaker — a vote that could open them up to primary challenges in 2020.

Others signing were incumbents Jim Cooper of Tennessee; Bill Foster of Illinois; Brian Higgins of New York; Stephen Lynch and Seth Moulton of Massachusetts; Ed Perlmutter of Colorado; Tim Ryan of Ohio; Kurt Schrader of Oregon and Filemon Vela of Texas. Incoming freshmen were Joe Cunningham of South Carolina, Max Rose from New York and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

The Liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns. Part I

Published

on

By

The Liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns Part I

The Left can’t argue that you don’t need a gun because the government won’t turn tyrannical while threatening that the government will turn tyrannical.

In what has to be the ultimate and game-changing tweet, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) threatened nuclear annihilation to anyone who refuses to give up their right of self-defense. The ensuing ‘fallout’ seeing him resort to damage control tactic of saying that thermonuclear gun confiscation was just a ‘joke’. After all, Who hasn’t chuckled at the prospect of the government going tyrannical with an H-bomb? One can easily see the bumper stickers now: Vote Swalwell 2020- or I will nuke your…

One of the Left’s favorite little tactics is to accuse those of the Pro-Liberty right of being ‘terrorists’ as their usual method of demonizing their opponents. Take note of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word Terrorist:

Adjective [attributive] Unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Origin
Late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

The long train of demands for gun confiscation

Perhaps Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell doesn’t realize his tweet was the ultimate in the listing of demands for gun confiscation by the Liberty grabber Left. A long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, as Thomas Jefferson termed it in the Declaration of Independence. That his erstwhile ‘joke’ he, Piers Morgan and others have made is the nuclear straw that broke the camels back. They, along with all the other Leftists who have demanded gun confiscation have initiated a sea of change in the debate over the common sense human right of self-defense.

The old approach by the Left that denied that confiscation was their ultimate goal

It used to be that the Left would hide behind a mask of support of the 2nd amendment. Never mind that each move they made was towards their final solution to the gun problem. Their tired refrain to most arguments about guns was that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’ or some variation thereof. This was a way to short-circuit the debate to one of incremental or ‘progressive’ steps negating any of their ill effects.

Pointing out that some new law would punish 120 million gun owners for the deeds of a few criminals would see the abject denial of ‘no one is being punished’ or ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

Mention that a new restriction on freedom infringing on the 2nd amendment and those who pretend to be Liberal on the Left would answer back ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’.

Talk about Intergalactic Background Checks [or Universal, enhanced or ‘Common sense’] would place government control over your personal property while acting as a stepping stone to confiscation would be met with the assertion that you must believe in conspiracy theories and that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

The disturbing trend in Leftists demands for gun confiscation.

We have previously established that the Left wants to ban and confiscate all guns with over 70 documented instances of those demands. Leaving out the multiplying effect of the excerpting and reprinting of those demands.

This arduous task was under taken to prove a point, that the Left has dropped the mask on this subject. But it has also revealed a disturbing trend over the years. What began a few years ago as few and far between calls for gun confiscation has morphed into far more strident and frequent demands. Demands that were only made in obscure far-Left online publications have found their way into the mainstream and supposedly Liberal media sources. The rate on the number of demands made per ‘serious crisis’ have accelerated to the ultimate demand made by Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell. This has manifestly changed the debate in favour of the Pro-Liberty Conservative side.

Consider a sampling of these demands:

What began as mere calls to amend the Constitution – removing a fundamental human right in the process – or banning certain ‘types’ of guns. Have become threats to turn over all of our guns or to ‘comprise’ and lose some of them with incremental steps.

Then the Left became impatient, unable to restrain it’s ‘collective’ hatred of Liberty.

For at least the past several years, to say that those two talking points [or a variation thereof] were a complete and total lie would be an understatement of epic proportions. But even now that hasn’t stopped Leftists from denying the obvious.

But now the Nuke comment has changed all of that, everyone is now seeing that the Left has been making their demands for gun confiscation in every corner of their echo chamber. This is part of the reason many have undertaken the task of documenting these demands such as Here, Here and of course here.

Their open demands for gun confiscation and for the suppression of other types of Liberty have changed the dynamic. It is now a question of Liberty versus tyranny – with the Left being on the side of governmental oppression to the tune of nuclear annihilation if one does not comply.

In part II we will examine the debate in terms of the new paradigm of Liberty versus Tyranny.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report