Connect with us

Guns and Crime

What if President Obama had recommended a bump stock ban?

Published

on

What if President Obama had recommended a bump stock ban

It’s the tale of two tribes. On one hand, you have the Obama-loving leftists and Democrats who want to curtail our 2nd Amendment right. On the other side, you have the gun-toting, Trump-loving conservatives and Republicans who understand any limits placed on the 2nd Amendment will lead us down the road towards confiscations.

But this tale has a weird twist happening right now. After consulting the tea leaves and invoking his past when he supported every form of gun control legislation under the sun, President Trump is endorsing a ban on bump stocks, the attachment used in the Mandalay Bay massacre in Las Vegas just over a year ago. The attachments allow for single trigger-pull extended fire, giving a semi-automatic rifle some of the attributes of an automatic rifle. It doesn’t “convert” a semi-automatic rifle as many proponents of the legislation suggest. It mimics the effects by allowing the shooter to hold the bump stock trigger down while the gun’s trigger is depressed and released by the bump stock itself.

The attachment, used properly, allows for faster firing while reducing trigger finger fatigue. It also reduces accuracy.

This “common sense gun safety” ban is politically expedient for anyone not running on a pro-2nd Amendment platform. The leftward lurch of Democrats has allowed many Republicans, including the President and some on Capitol Hill, to buy into the “common sense” argument and still retain their 2nd Amendment edge on the competition.

Nevertheless, it’s a dangerous first domino to start tipping in these precarious times. It sets the precedent that if a firearm or accessory can be deemed too dangerous to the general public, it can be banned. Supporting a bump stock ban opens the door for further regulations against “dangerous” accessories like thumbhole stocks, suppressors, certain types of scopes, and forward grips. It also lends itself to the fodder that “assault weapons” should be banned and include a wider range of firearms.

Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

The debate over bump stocks has highlighted a bigger problem in our political system. Extreme tribalism has infected both sides of the aisle, causing people to adamantly embrace or oppose a person, in this case President Trump, to the point that their own ideologies shift to match the party-line narrative.

You don’t see many Republicans speaking out against the proposed ban for one reason only: President Trump supports it. You don’t see many Democrats praising the ban that they’ve been hoping to get for one reason only: President Trump supports it. Americans are so fiercely supportive of or opposed to the President that they’re willing to bend their own ideologies and remain silent on such a controversial issue.

If President Obama had pushed for the exact same bump stock ban, every Republican west of the Atlantic Ocean would be up in arms, many of them literally. Every Democrat would be hailing it as the first step to a safer America. Instead, we have crickets.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

Graham Ledger: Democrats, mainstream media panicking over William Barr’s upcoming investigations

Published

on

Graham Ledger Democrats mainstream media panicking over William Barrs upcoming investigations

It’s human nature for people to talk about one of two things: What they want the most and what they fear the most. That’s why the rhetoric coming from the Democratic Party and their lapdogs in mainstream media for the last month has all surrounded Attorney General William Barr, the people working with him, and Barr’s boss, the President of the United States. The left has been inconsolable ever since the Mueller report did not send the President into the tailspin they so desperately sought.

One America News anchor Graham Ledger called them out for the hypocrisy surrounding their unhinged reactions to Barr’s upcoming investigations. There are several and all point to the notion that the Obama administration and progressives in the FBI sought to derail then-candidate Trump’s campaign so Hillary Clinton could win the White House.

It’s a conspiracy theory, one that seems very close to being pronounced a verified conspiracy. Every day more evidence emerges that the Democrats were playing dirty and potentially illegally when they tried to stop the election of Donald Trump. And as this truth comes to light, the Democrats and mainstream media are doing everything in their power to keep the conversation from heading in the proper direction of focusing on the real scandal surrounding the Russia investigation.

It may be months or even years before we know the whole truth. In fact, if President Trump is not reelected, we may never know the whole truth. That’s not the biggest reason to vote for him, but it’s quickly becoming a hot talking point among Independents who are sick of the corruption that seems to be pervasive in the Democratic Party as a whole.

Things haven’t been working out the way Democrats or mainstream media expected. In their wildest dreams they didn’t think they could get caught in so many lies, but as Graham Ledger pointed out, that’s exactly what’s happening.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Sanctuary policies fail 14-year-old Ariana Funes-Diaz again as her suspected MS-13 murderers released a second time

Published

on

Three juvenile MS-13 gang members charged for brutal murder of 14-year-old Ariana Funes-Diaz

The story of Ariana Funes-Diaz’s death is saddening because it was completely preventable. Our initial report failed to determine her alleged murderers had already been detained and released a year before she was killed.

MS-13 gang members Josue Rafael Fuentes-Ponce and Joel Ernesto Escobar were in the custody of Prince George County in Maryland with ICE detainer orders on them, but the sanctuary rules in the jurisdiction allowed their release. They allegedly claimed another victim less than a year later, had another detainer put on them following their arrest, and have again been released so they could avoid deportation.

Let that sink in. Murder suspects have been released by law enforcement because of sanctuary rules in place. There is absolutely no way for Democrats to spin this, but in their minds they’re doing the right thing because the rights of gang member illegal immigrants are higher than the rights of American citizens.

ICE has rightly condemned the rules that allowed this and the law enforcement agencies that are failing to protect Americans.

ICE seeks custody of teen murder suspects for a second time

Following the recent arrest of two unlawfully present teens suspected in the violent murder of a young girl in Maryland, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers in Baltimore are again seeking to take custody of the illegal aliens through the ICE detainer process following the Prince George’s County Detention Center’s (PGCDC) failure to cooperate.

Josue Rafael Fuentes-Ponce and Joel Ernesto Escobar, both Salvadoran nationals, were previously arrested on May 11, 2018 when they were arrested by Prince George’s County Police Department (PGCPD) for attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, participation in gang activity, conspiracy to commit murder, attempted robbery, and other related charges. ICE officers lodged a detainer with PGCDC, however both were released on an unknown date and time without notification to ICE.

Sanctuary rules give the freedom of criminal illegal aliens higher priority than the safety of American citizens. Ariana Funes-Diaz would be alive today if her MS-13 gang member murderers weren’t protected by Democrats. It’s infuriating.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

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

Facebook

Trending