Connect with us

Conservatism

10 reasons to oppose gun confiscation SWATing, aka red flag gun laws

Published

on

10 reasons to oppose gun confiscation SWATing aka red flag gun laws

Congratulations President Trump. You figured out how to get both sides to despise you.

In a move future historians will most assuredly call his “Read my lips: no new taxes”  moment, Trump has signaled to the knuckling under to the imposition of Gun Confiscation SWATing and Intergalactic Background Checks(Aliases: ‘Universal’ or ‘enhanced’). Spineless politicians were supposed to be a thing of the past with the GOP, but thanks to mass murder attacks caused and conducted by Leftists, the lot of us are to surrender a bit more of our Freedom.

The idiom refers to George H.W. Bush’s pledge during in 1988 run for the presidency. Later in the midst of a fiscal crisis, he raised taxes in a ‘Bipartisan’ effort to fix a budgetary crisis. Being a ‘Bipartisan’ effort the national socialist Left then royally excoriated the Chief executive with an attendant lost election. In the present, the idiom could be modified as Trump saying: ‘Read my red flag’.

President Trump working overtime to anger the other half of the country.

In the present case, we have a man carried into the Oval office on the shoulders of the more than 120 million gun owners (a figure from 2 years ago, that has no doubt grown substantially).  These are people who enthusiastically donated, volunteered and voted for the man being angered and no longer offering their support, all to placate people who wouldn’t vote for the man anyway. How is that for making a deal?

There is an old saying that you never cut down a tree (Deciduous to be exact) in the wintertime since you don’t know if it’s alive or dead. The point is that you don’t make momentous decisions in the throes of emotion, such as in the wake of tragedy. If something is a valid measure, it will pass in a calm time as well. The fact these Freedom destroying abominations have to be rushed along before sober contemplation means these should be rejected.

Of course, there is always the factor of showing weakness emboldening the enemy, causing them to demand even more. As The Hill reports, in this case it’s Senate Minority Leader Schumer demanding even more affronts to Liberty. Make no mistake, the nanosecond a bill is signed for Intergalactic Background Checks (Aliases: ‘Universal’ or ‘enhanced’) or Gun Confiscation SWATing, the Authoritarian Socialist Left will demand gun registration or some other denigration of Liberty.

These are the top 10 reasons to oppose Gun Confiscation SWATing.

Some articles are more difficult to write than others, in this case it is because the items in the list keep on expanding while it’s becoming exceedingly difficult to place them in the proper order of importance.

10. A festering boil that will not go away.

Presumably those considering this appeasement to the party of authoritarian socialism think that this will be implemented and disappear from the headlines such that if will be forgotten by 2020. This of course is a stunning amount of naivete in that more and more Trump voters will be caught up these unconstitutional abominations, not to mention the inevitable deaths from these forced confiscations. They will be a constant reminder of betrayal, reminded all the time by the national socialist media as they did with ‘Read my lips’.

9. Potential voters will have to pay enormous legal bills to get their property back.

Just imagine the ongoing anger of those who have to go to court and foot the legal bills to have their private property returned to them. Money that could have gone to Trump 2020 but instead has to be wasted for these legal fights.

8. An unjust mark on one’s permanent record.

Even if that property is returned, the record of an unjust accusation will still be there. Making an innocent voter ineligible to do many things, including buying any more guns.

7. This won’t appease the nation’s socialists and they will want to expand the law.

Just as they want to do with Intergalactic Background Checks, the left will want to expand who can ‘call in’ one of these Gun Confiscation SWATings as in the case of the people’s republic of California. Expand the reach and make them easier to initiate, perfect for a practice that involves the forced confiscation of property at gunpoint.

6. Gun confiscation SWATing won’t solve the problem and will only make the situation worse.

Studies have shown that forcible and unjust gun confiscation schemes failed to have any effect, as noted in the abstract from the Crime Prevention Research Center

Red flag laws had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary. There is some evidence that rape rates rise. These laws apparently do not save lives.

The fact is that many more lives are saved by guns than are taken, thus these tyrannical tactics will only make things worse.

5. It will make potential voters vulnerable to extortion – even if they don’t own guns.

There is always a tendency of tyrants to want to expand their power, so as they make it easier for an ever-expanding field of people who can call in a gun confiscation SWATing. It will open all manner of opportunities to exact revenge or extort some under the threat of being on the receiving end of these ‘Red Flag’ raids at 3:00 AM. Note that it will be worse for those who don’t possess firearms as the authorities rip apart someone’s home to find something that isn’t there.

4. A need based on a bald faced lie -There are already laws on the books to handle these situations.

As we detailed here and here , the dire situations that these unconstitutional abominations are supposed to cover are already taken care of. There are laws for ‘Civil commitment’ already on the books in every state. Unfortunately, these aren’t draconian enough for the national socialist Left since they protect due process.

3. Criminals will be treated better than the innocent.

Speaking of due process, those vestiges of our representative republic will be fully vested in the outlaw set, not so much with the innocent. But what’s better than treating the law-abiding worse than the lawless for garnering votes?

2. Gun confiscation: Not just for violating the 2nd amendment any more.

One gets the distinct impression that our betters in the national socialist Left are in a competition to see who can craft a new law that will violate the greater portion of the bill of rights. Not satisfied with infringing on a basic human right, the Left has expanded their quest for the destruction of Liberty to illegal seizure of effects protected by the 4th amendment as well as the due process provisions of the 5th and 6th. With dishonorable violations of the free speech provisions of the 1st, and enumeration of rights in the 9th and 10th for good measure. Just think if they could figure out a way to quarter federal troops as part of a Gun Confiscation SWATing, they could almost have a clean sweep of the entire Bill of Rights!

1. ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ in changing our relationship with the government.

This is the last one because it is vitally important. We’re not using the term ‘Crossing the Rubicon’ lightly or out of click-bait frivolity, this point is deadly 1860’s serious. For all the other reasons outlined, this is the most dire. It all hearkens back to the founding of the nation, when the colonials declared independence

Plain and simple, this changes the relationship from one of ‘consent of the governed’ to a government of consent, whereby citizens become subjects to it ever-changing whims.  The founding documents were meant to protect the individual [minority] from the collective [majority] this is part of the precepts of true Liberalism. Liberalism is despised by collectivists because of this.

Due process means the individual is protected from the full force of the government – the collective. Getting rid of this vital concept turns this on its head, removing this counterbalance to government power. It was or is a vestige of socialist nations to have secret police organisations – Cheka, Gesatapo, AVO, Stasi, CDR, SEBIN, etc. Who worked by the way of a web of informants who would report to the authorities any activity or words that were verboten. The secret police would then ‘visit’ the accused at 3:00 and be ‘disappeared’ without any kind of due process. Do we really want to head down the slippery slope to this scenario?

As we’ve stated, the 2nd amendment is the canary in the coal mine of liberty. If they can get away with the changing of the relationship with firearms, what is to stop them from doing this with every other restraint? Bottom line: This is why every lover of Liberty should oppose this draconian and dangerous measure.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Why isn’t gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist?

Published

on

By

Why isnt gun control considered to be sexist as well as racist

Liberty [Gun] Control is rooted in racism. It also adversely affects women. Why isn’t it considered to be racist and sexist?

A recent video from One America News Network entitled: ‘Gun Rights Are Women’s Rights’ made this very important point on the topic of Liberty Control. The basic facts of science have one sex at a disadvantage to the other, with guns being the great equalizer.

Why doesn’t the Left have to answer for the sexism and racism of Liberty control?

These days, the national socialist Left wields pejoratives Racism and Sexism like an assault weapon. So why aren’t these labels applied to them for their incessant attacks against freedom? Firearms are the great equalizers, with the Left’s gun confiscation agenda having a disproportionate effect on women and minorities.  Somehow the Left escapes these facts being applied to them, while they exploit those words with abandon.

We’ve already detailed the racism aspect of this issue here, and case for Liberty control being sexist made in this video.

Why the gun is civilization..

We will wrap this up with a column written in 2007 by Marko Kloos on a WordPress blogging site the Munchkin wrangler. It encapsulates the issue of firearms down to one proposition on how human being deal with each other.

MARCH 23, 2007 by MARKO KLOOS
Why the gun is civilization.
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[Emphasis added]

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

The 2nd Amendment is the first target in the left’s war on liberty

Published

on

By

The 2nd Amendment is the first target in the Lefts war on Liberty

The commonsense civil right of armed self-defense is the canary in a coal mine for the cause of liberty.

It was a little over a month ago that John Lovell from the Warrior Poet Society produced this video, but it seems longer given recent events. He expresses the thoughts of many that are becoming increasingly prescient by the day. We are witness to the fact that while those on the national socialist left like to profess support of liberty as being ‘liberal’ they are becoming ever more strident towards the concept.

While the common sense human right of self-defense is literally the tip of the spear in the defense of liberty. The people on the left who only pretend to be liberal are now branching out from this basic human right, going after other civil liberties with a vengeance. Topping their list is a concept that eviscerates several civil liberties with on fell swoop, Gun Confiscation SWATing [aka so-called ‘Red flag’ laws ]. So far they’ve done little to solve the problem and according to an article from colleague Blaine Traber: Baltimore’s homicides by firearm RISE 13% since red flag gun law went into effect. Thus, these abominations of Constitutional Liberties are not only useless for their intended purpose, they are making the situation even worse.

Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris belched forth an even more egregious example in which she expanded her ire for self-preservation to what George Orwell characterized as ‘Wrongthink’. As reported in Bearing Arms, Senator Harris proposed opening up the criteria for gun confiscation to the realm of improper viewpointsThis case illustrates that the 2nd amendment is just the first target in the Left’s war on Liberty, but it certainly won’t be the last.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Twitter is against conservatives. Here’s how conservatives must fight back.

Published

on

Twitter is against conservatives Heres how conservatives must fight back

There’s an easy answer to the question of how to hold Twitter accountable for its anti-conservative policies that often purge, silence, or censor its users who are committing their version of thoughtcrimes. Just delete your account. Unfortunately, this answer is insufficient when we consider the tremendous clout Twitter holds over the media and much of the population. It’s where many Americans get their news (and #FakeNews). It’s also a cesspool of rhetoric, and while I’m personally opposed to wading into cesspools of any sort, I recognize Twitter is still an important tool in the fight against socialism.

So, we’re stuck with it.

But that doesn’t mean we have to sit back and let the “algorithm” virtually silence us. Today, I participated in a “bootcamp” for conservatives, many of whom are new to Twitter, on how to be better virtual patriots. It was a refreshing experience; it had been too long since I engaged in teaching outside of my writing on NOQ Report. But one question sort of stumped me. It’s not that I didn’t have the answers, but Twitter is a platform of brevity and the answer to the question wasn’t possible to communicate briefly.

In short, the question was how can conservatives overcome the roadblocks that Twitter imposes on us? Here are the answers:

Know your goal

It’s surprising how many people join Twitter with the goal of showing support for President Trump. I ask them who they’re “showing” their support to. They usually reply with “everyone” or “my followers,” at which point I inform them that they’re probably not reaching as many people as they think, if any at all.

Reach is everything on Twitter. It’s like a tree falling in an empty forest. If a Tweet is sent out, and nobody reads it, was it really a Tweet at all?

But there are other worthy goals for patriots. “Trolling” is often frowned upon, but it’s actually a very powerful tool if used properly on Twitter. By trolling, I’m not a fan of personal attacks on anyone. But trolling policies and politicians in the face of their claims is often enough to get supporters or potential supporters to ask questions or research it for themselves. Let me go troll someone real quick and I’ll post an example…

…stand by…

…okay… done…

You don’t have to have a single goal. You can focus on multiple things depending on how much time you put into Twitter. But you must have at least one. If you’re here to support the President, decide how you want to show your support and work towards achieving that goal. Without knowing what you want to accomplish, you’ll likely accomplish nothing.

Follow those who like your stuff

When someone follows me, there’s a chance I’ll look at their Tweets and follow them back. But if someone likes or retweets me and they’re conservatives, I’ll almost certainly follow them even if they’re not following me. Interaction with content I post is far more important than following.

This isn’t an egotistical decision. It’s based on the algorithm. I’m sure you’ve noticed just because you’re following someone doesn’t mean you’ll see their Tweets in your feed. But if you like a post, retweet it, comment on it, or a combination of the three, there’s a good chance you’ll see what they Tweet and retweet in the future.

I follow those who interact with my posts because if they follow me as well, they’ve already engaged with my content. As a result, they are already more likely to see my posts in their feed. With reach being the goal, following people who have interacted with your posts and getting them to follow you back makes the most sense.

Replies are often more powerful than standalone Tweets

When we post a standalone Tweet, it has an opportunity to be seen by our followers and the followers of those who retweet us. When we reply to someone else, it has an opportunity to be seen by the same people as a standalone Tweet PLUS those who follow the person we’re responding to. Though fewer of our followers will see a reply than a standalone, there’s a chance to reach a different audience.

As noted above, I often troll those whose views I oppose. But sometimes I’ll reply to people I agree with wholeheartedly. There’s no rule about who you reply to, though I strongly recommend being cordial. The left gets unhinged. It’s incumbent on patriots to keep our cool, take the high road, and express our indignation intelligently. Just as we laugh at unhinged progressives, so too do they laugh at unhinged conservatives. But when we’re cordial and thoughtful, their only complaints can be about substance.

Guess who wins the substance debate? Conservatives. Why? Because we have the truth on our side.

One way to “double dip” is to retweet your reply. They don’t appear in your primary timeline otherwise and by retweeting it, you give it even more opportunity to be seen by your followers.

Don’t Tweet in batches unless it’s a thread

Don’t spread your Tweets thin. Tweeting one right after another reduces the chances of your Tweets being seen because Twitter usually only serves a few of your Tweets and retweets to followers at any given moment. Thankfully, The Twitter feed moves quickly, so it doesn’t take a long “cooldown” between Tweets. 5-10 minutes is fine.

The exception to this rule is with threads. There’s no time limit. I’ve seen threads that are a dozen Tweets long posted in a matter of seconds. I’ve seen threads extend for days at a time. With a thread, you have the opportunity for multiple Tweets to be seen as people click the “Show This Thread” button.

If I retweet a lot, I’ll often wait the 5-10 minutes before posting a fresh Tweet. This isn’t necessarily a rule of mine. Just habit, I suppose.

Keep in mind, some are able to take advantage of massive followings and Tweet constantly. This is only recommended if you’re regularly getting hundreds or thousands of retweets already.

Assume bias and proceed accordingly

Arguably the most important advice I can give any patriot wanting to make an impact through Twitter is to not take it too seriously. I know many people who put so much effort into Twitter that they have little time for other acts of patriotism. Twitter is important, but it’s not important enough to take away attention from other things.

I’ve been there. Before a strange algorithmic banning and a pair of long hiatuses from the platform, I would regularly get hundreds of retweets, sometimes thousands. I wasn’t nearly as popular as many of the strong conservative accounts today, but I had my share of semi-viral posts. But Twitter took that away. I helped by not paying enough attention, allowing my account to go stagnant. I’m embarrassed that some of my posts get literally zero interaction, but I don’t worry too much.

After all, it’s just Twitter.

We know the powers that be in big tech are determined to push the 2020 elections to the Democrats. We can give up or we can fight through it. I, for one, am choosing to push forward. There’s nothing worse than a quitter.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending