Connect with us

Democrats

The liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns, part II

Published

on

The liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns part II

The Left has gone full confiscator in the debate over Liberty, this is how we should respond to their demands from now on.

In the past the enemies of Liberty on the Left have tried the incremental approach to the deprivation of fundamental human and civil rights. In their zeal to produce a groundswell, they have made it clear that they reject the freedom of self-defense as well as other vestiges of the founding documents. This has been documented here and a number of other places to the point they can no longer deny this fact.

The Left has changed the argument to a contention between Liberty and tyranny.

While they tried to pretend that gun confiscation wasn’t their real goal, the evidence for that is quite clear from their writings. Their frustration at the lack of ‘progress’ in the diminution of Liberty caused them to become more vitriolic in the process. Curiously enough, what was alleged to be the ‘right’ side of history has been shown to be wrong with other nations reversing the course away from tyranny and towards Liberty.

Their writings and commentary over the years has made it quite clear that they have but one goal: Gun confiscation. With all of their energy and activism prioritising the attainment of that goal. The body of evidence shows that any compromises or ‘common sense’ steps are mere stepping-stones to their endgame. The recent comment by Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell epitomises the mindset of the Left, that we are to give up our freedom or suffer the consequences.

Compromises met with still more demands.

In the past, we of the Pro-Liberty Right have compromised in trying to resolve the issue, only to be met with still more demands in their incremental assault on Liberty. Any attempts at ‘bipartisanship’ are subsequently ignored to the point that the Left will Lie about the very existence of these compromises, as in the example of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ‘NICS’ system. This is being done for the sole purpose of imposing even more draconian controls on freedom.

The openly stated goal of the Left of total gun confiscation means a major change in the debate over the subject. It will no longer be one on the efficacy of incremental compromise steps, but in the context of the demand for gun confiscation made by the Left in and of themselves over the past few years.

The debate over Liberty in the context of the Left’s demand for Gun confiscation.

Terminology – ‘Control’ changed to ‘Reform’.

The Left loves to play games with words, blithely using them to deceive and outright lie. Their exploitation of the word ‘Liberal’ is a prime example of their outright deceit in this realm. The debate over the fundamental human right of self-defense is no exception. In the past the Liberty grabber Left used the term ‘Gun Control’ until it was noticed that it was more of an issue of control than of inanimate objects.

Then the Left hit on the idea of labeling most, if not all of their control schemes as ‘reform’. Neglecting that the word has it’s origins in sense of restoration or

‘bring back to the original condition’ from the word in Latin ‘reformare, from re- ‘back’ + formare ‘to form, shape’

But ‘reform’ sounds so much nicer than control, until one considers the tyrannical stick that accompanies this ‘reform’ ranges from a SWAT team with small ‘flash bang’ grenades to megaton sized ‘flash bang’ nuclear weapons as threatened by the likes of Representative Swalwell.

Leftists demands for ‘gun reform’ or ‘common sense’ control of our Liberty should be met with the reminders of their ultimate demands. And that there won’t be any more moves towards gun confiscation no matter what they call it.

Demands to ‘Do something, anything!’ after every serious crisis.

The context here will be in terms of the Left’s stated goal of Gun confiscation. The Left used to abjectly deny that the innocent were being punished, but with confiscation being the goal that is clearly the case.

Punishing 120 Million innocent people for the actions of a few criminals will be rejected in the context that they have done nothing wrong. That it will be manifestly unfair to take out the Left’s emotional angst on the innocent.

The massive injustice of collectively punishing millions of innocent people should be rejected outright, no matter the emotional impetus.

Defensive Gun Uses [DGU’s] and deterrence.

Within the context of gun confiscation, the Left’s agenda on the subject means that innocent people will be left vulnerable to criminals and the government tyranny. While Leftist gun grab would supposedly save Approximately 36,000 per year people from the spectre of death from ‘gun violence’ the numbers show that far more people [500,000 and 3 million per year] are protected by guns.Far more women would be raped or killed for not having the equalising factor of a means of self-defence.

Worse still, the deterrence effect would be gone after confiscation since criminals would know the innocent cannot be armed. Converting the entire country into a disastrous ‘gun-free’ zone where only the criminals and government would be armed.

It should be obvious that disarming the innocent doesn’t protect the innocent. Now that the Left’s plans have been laid bare, they should now be the ones culpable for endangering everyone with their Utopian fantasies of ‘gun-free’ zones.

Intergalactic Background Checks and Registration.

Again, this will now be in the context of the Left’s stated goal of Gun confiscation. Both of those steps are useless for any other purpose. Intergalactic Background Checks would see unlawful government over private property. While registration would set the precedent that one needs permission from the government to have the means to hold the government in check.

Intergalactic [or universal, enhanced or ‘common sense’] Background Checks and Registration are worthless expenditures of effort aside from being precursor’s confiscation. At this point in time it would be ludicrous to trust them with any more compromises or the yielding of Liberty to them.

Out with the old, in with the Nukes.

In many ways, Mr. Swalwell and the rest of the gun confiscation gang have done us all a great favour. While they have openly revealed their intention for their own cynical purposes, these revelations have changed the debate.

From now on the context will be in terms of gun confiscation.

  • The Left can no longer claim they want to protect women.
  • The Left can no longer claim they want to protect the innocent.
  • The Left can no longer claim they want ‘common sense’ solutions or ‘reform’.
  • The Left can no longer claim they want to protect Liberty and the Constitution.

The Takeaway

The Left went full confiscator, never realising that one should never go full confiscator. They have openly admitted what has been obvious. They changed the debate with the mistaken belief that it would create a groundswell of people wanting to give up their freedom, in exchange for not being vaporised.

Instead of a ground swell, they have destroyed their own argument. But in actuality it was going to be a dead end for them anyway. At some point they would have been forced to admit the obvious, that the end goal has to be confiscation. Eric ‘NuKem’ Swalwell just put a mushroom cloud exclamation point on the admission of that point.

 

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Gene Ralno

    November 23, 2018 at 12:03 pm

    Eric “Nukem” Swalwell apparently is not sufficiently educated to have heard of the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152). It forbids the use of military forces to enforce domestic policies within the United States. If he had ever served his country, he’d understand that nobody in the military would ever fire on peaceable Americans, even if ordered to do so. That aside, this wussy boy doesn’t have the guts to personally confiscate anyone’s firearm. Here’s my message for this big shot who never served his country and obviously doesn’t respect it. He believes he personally has powers specifically forbidden by the Constitution to the whole federal government. As America’s supreme law, the Constitution limits federal government authority over citizens.

    The 2nd Amendment specifically forbids what this creepy Californian proposes. It contains only 27 small words so even he should understand it: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The term “militia” refers to peaceable, lawfully armed people. They aren’t reservists, national or state guardsmen, inactive military or any other organized group. They’re civilians. The founders would have had no reason to affirm this natural civil right to military people because they already worked for the government that owned their arms and directed their use. To think otherwise is absurd.

    In this context, the term “infringed” clearly means even the slightest meddling by the federal government is strictly forbidden. Additionally, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The term “incorporated” means even the states are forbidden from meddling in any way with a civilian’s right to keep and bear arms.

    Therefore, the only option to implement what this big mouthed small fry would do is to declare war on America’s firearms owners, all 120 million of them. So, as they say in New York and Connecticut, molon labe. We’ve caught onto this ninny’s little flimflam. He wants no interference with his party’s goal of using taxpayer money to fund entitlements. The democrat party needs entitlements to exchange for votes. They fear any discussion of resistance to their will.

    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 this twerp’s 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 *

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

4 Retweets in an hour: Bill de Blasio’s campaign failed to materialize

Published

on

4 Retweets in an hour Bill de Blasios campaign failed to launch

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was supposed to make an impact on the Democratic presidential nominating process. At least that’s what a handful of pundits thought. But after a little buzz on his first day and a few jabs by the President, it appears de Blasio was nowhere near ready to run for president despite coming in much later than most in the field.

Last week, we noted how his YouTube channel had failed miserably. But that embarrassment was nothing compared to his attempts to play on Twitter, which happens to be the President’s favorite social media playground.

Bill Tweet

In case he keeps the Tweet up (he shouldn’t) and doesn’t attempt to artificially boost his numbers (he shouldn’t), I’ll put it here to see if it got any traction. Out of sheer embarrassment for him, I shared it and encouraged people to help him out. This is just too cringeworthy to watch unfold on its own.

Is Twitter important? There’s actually as much of a risk to candidates saying the wrong thing on Twitter as there is of them gaining support as a result. But between Trump’s epic use of Twitter in 2016 and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s use of the platform to shoot herself up to fame, candidates need to at least try to do well on the platform. Bill de Blasio is not doing well. That indicates two possibilities: either he and his team were ill-prepared to run for president or they’re not really running for president but rather running for a cabinet spot or something else in exchange for his help delivering the New York delegates to the eventual nominee.

Either option seems viable at this point.

One thing is certain: Bill de Blasio’s campaign for president should not be taken seriously by anyone. Democratic primary voters and Republican operatives need to all ignore him. He’s going nowhere in 2020.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Blue Collar Logic: How the left is acting like a villain who wants to be caught

Published

on

Blue Collar Logic How the left is acting like a villain who wants to be caught

There are many ways to look at the unprecedented lurch to the left the Democratic Party has been experiencing over the last couple of years. Some, particularly the radical progressives leading the charge, see it as a natural evolution of ideas as their delicate sensibilities blossom. Establishment Democrats see them as a backlash against losing so inexplicably with Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Many Republicans don’t see much of a difference other than a more vocal expression of what they’ve held in their hearts for some time.

The folks over at Blue Collar Logic have a different take. They’re seeing the strange actions and hyper-leftist lurching by the Democrats as a transition into a criminal mindset. Whether consciously or subconsciously, they’re throwing out ideas that make very little sense even when compared to what they’ve said in the past. Like a criminal that wants to be caught, they’re leaving clues that they know what they’re doing and saying is wrong, but they feel compelled to do them anyway.

The clearest example to me is the notion that abortions can and should be a consideration even after an “unwanted” baby is born following a botched abortion. Even in the most evil levels of consciousness, there has to be a sense of wrongdoing in the way they’re describing the events as they can hypothetically happen based on what’s being proposed in some states today, but they continue down this road as if they’re unaffected by logic or compassion. The push for “women’s rights” has so superseded their thinking when it comes to abortion that the most extreme version of abortion must be the one that they embrace.

As we approach the 2020 election season, let’s keep a close eye on the rhetoric and radical policy proposals candidates are throwing out. Just because it’s on record doesn’t mean enough voters will hear them. We need their ideas to stick to them like evidence in a murder case.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending