Archive for the ‘Liberal Fascists’ Category

Reading the first few paragraphs of this Bloomberg article really begins to give a feel for what the Obama administration is:

When President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, the biggest question he’ll face will be how to get an ambitious second-term agenda through a divided Congress.

The answer: Go around it.

On climate change, gun control, gay rights, and even immigration, the White House has signaled a willingness to circumvent lawmakers through the use of presidential power. Already, plans are being laid to unleash new executive orders, regulations, signing statements and memorandums designed to push Obama’s programs forward and cement his legacy, according to administration aides and allies.

“The big things that we need to get done, we can’t wait on,” said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer. “If we can take action, we will take action.”

Congress is unpopular because there’s no face to congress other than that of the whiny weakling John Boehner.  The right hates congress because they’re constantly surrendering, and the left hates congress because the right in congress isn’t surrendering enough.  The low information voter just hears complaints about congress and believes it, rather than looking at their own representative.

There is no congressional media office out trying to paint a picture of congress as a benevolent deliberative body in the same way that Obama has his numerous official and unofficial propaganda wings.  Half the country that supports Obama’s agenda (until they find themselves targeted) represents a great amount of support.  Half the country that supports their half of congress doesn’t support the other half of congress, so popularity remains low.

And in this void, with the elected representatives of the people both hated and demonized, comes that powerful figure to simply work around them.  Checks and balances exist for a reason, and working around those checks and balances – imposed by free people who vote for their representatives to represent them – is someone who will simply make things happen.  There is a certain allure to a “man of action” who will make decisions while others deliberate – it’s those exciting, dynamic “men of action” who seize power that make for compelling stories.  A president who merely presides and works to uphold the rule of law and execute the orders issued by the citizens through congress isn’t as fascinating as a heroic figure who goes it alone and tells off the yammering talkers.

But in governmental context, that’s a dictator.

Just today, Obama went out asking for police chiefs and law enforcement to support his assault on the Constitution.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama kept up pressure on Congress Monday to pass tough new gun legislation, seeking help from law enforcement leaders in three communities that have suffered the horrors of mass shootings.

At a White House meeting, Obama said that no group is more important in the gun debate and he said he recognizes the issue “elicits a lot of passion all across the country.” But Obama also said he believes Congress will respond to appeals from police.

“Hopefully if law enforcement officials who are dealing with this stuff every single day can come to some basic consensus in terms of steps that we need to take,” he said, “Congress is going to be paying attention to them, and we’ll be able to make progress.”

Law enforcement leaders are bureaucrat politicians.  They’re there to avoid liability and make decisions that will make sure they can retire.  They take their oaths less seriously than their desire to lord over and control populations, because they’re used to lording over and controlling a police force, and see “the public” as something else to be controlled – and all of that lording over and controlling makes for a stable element for them to retire from.

Law enforcement leaders often do things that are illegal as well.  One rather famous one was drug checkpoints inside the US in the case of Indianapolis v Edmond.  The short short version is you can’t go violating the 4th Amendment “in the general interest of crime control”.  Stopping everyone on the road and searching them for anything illegal may be effective, but it makes for a police state.  A police state, to a police administrator, is an okay thing.

Keep in mind police already get special rights when it comes to the Second Amendment, whether active or retired.  Some animals are more equal than others.  There are good reasons for those statutes, and in free states they mirror what citizens can already do.  In states ruled with iron fists, they give special privileges to the state enforcers.

Out in San Diego, the anti-rights police chief there says that the destruction of gun culture and massive gun confiscation can be done in a matter of a generation:

San Diego Police Chief, William Lansdowne said in an interview that the implementation of new gun laws will take guns off the streets of America within a generation.

According to San Diego 6, Lansdowne said that it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban:

“Chief Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) association, said it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban legislation. Some of the items his organization is addressing include; a ban on assault weapons, restricting high-capacity magazines, closing loopholes that allow firearm sales between private owners without background checks, and implementing much stricter background checks by using a comprehensive database.”

Ban modern guns, ban effective guns, ban citizens from selling to each other without begging permission of the state, and have the state simply deny everyone while tracking everyone for further confiscation.  Shall not be infringed is meaningless to this bureaucrat cop.

Lansdowne called for tougher gun laws in an interview with KPBS, and praised President Obama for his initiative on gun control.

“I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has,” he said.

“I think it’s courageous with the politics involved in this process.  But I think it’s going to eventually make the country safer and certainly safer for my officers that have to respond to these calls.

And there’s the key.  As a bureaucrat, he thinks this will make the mob he lords over and controls safer.  It puts the individual citizen at a disadvantage (especially the woman who now is given the “right” to fistfight her rapist).  It also ignores that the police are not responsible for your safety.  They can’t be everywhere at once, so they can’t be held accountable for your individual misfortune.  But they can make you into a criminal if you fight back; and they can make you into a criminal who can’t own tools of self defense; or someone who they will prosecute later for using those tools to defend yourself.  Police don’t stop crime.  To quote the intro to Law & Order, the police investigate crime and district attorneys prosecute the offenders.  Nowhere in there are you defended – you’re the body found by the jogger at the beginning of the episode.

The bureaucrat cop doesn’t care that the public is disarmed at all.  He isn’t disarmed.  You’re the one without the gun – not him.  If he’s in law enforcement for too long, he gets that jaded “everyone sucks” mindset, wherein the only people who matter are cops, and everyone else is going to be a criminal sooner or later.  That isn’t the purpose of the police in a free society.

Lansdowne believes that the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut weakened the gun lobby’s power and has opened the door for new gun control legislation.

“We broke the NRA,” Lansdowne said off-camera.

This would be the equivalent of him saying “within a generation, with Connor’s reforms, we should be able to stomp out any integrationist ideas…” and off-camera “we broke MLK”.  And yes, I will keep right on going there – gun control is racist.

Lansdowne’s position on gun control appears to be in the minority among sheriffs across the nation, however.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, sheriffs from Florida to California have stated publicly that they will not comply with any new gun control measures proposed by the federal government.

That’s the good news.  Sheriffs, unlike police chiefs, are ultimately accountable.  They have elections to own up to, and voters to be responsible to.  A police chief answers only to a mayor – and many mayors have used the Curley Effect to totally destroy their cities, leading to police chiefs who are simply their paramilitary functionaries.  Most places, it takes more work to destroy a county than it does to destroy a city.

Something else that police chiefs as well as outright politicians will say are things like this line:

Still, one murder is one too many. One illegal gun is one too many, too, because when someone is murdered in New York City — although that happens much less frequently than in the past — odds are an illegal handgun was used.

Mind you in NYC, an “illegal gun” pretty much means any gun that isn’t owned by the police or political cronies of the mayor.  But this is also a Broken Window Fallacy argument.

Due to all the peaceable people willing to surrender their rights for what they think will be safety, there are a lot more people who are harmed, hurt, assaulted, robbed, murdered, and raped because they lack tools to fight back.  But these crime statistics that would be prevented with defensive gun usage never materialize.  In the rest of the country, DGUs are overlooked because they are underreported – if a crime is deterred, there is nothing to report, and the citizen who deters it is unlikely to call the police just to be hassled for a DGU.

Taking the idea that “one murder is too many” into “so we must disarm all the citizens” means that there will be more murders.  And the “odds are an illegal handgun was used” statement is because virtually all handguns in NYC are illegal.  But Bloomberg and his lackeys, like all dictators, can never control a populace entirely.  Prison guards work very hard to do so and know that it can’t be done.  Bloomberg then takes the usual route of all dictators and claims it’s because his system isn’t implemented everywhere.  The problem is there’s still freedom somewhere, and he must destroy it.  Police chiefs already have a subjected population – their officers, and a subjected area – their city.

Actual officers’ groups often oppose gun control, as they are the ones answering the calls and going to see people who were unable to resist criminals.  A few police chiefs also understand this, but the vocal ones, and the ones calling for gun control yesterday, today, and tomorrow, are those that hate that they can’t control everyone (thus destroying all risks and making their life easy).

Expect to see more titles like that.

From Breitbart:

politician bodyguard oleg volk

Contrast with the last leftist hypocrite from a few minutes ago.

Update: May as well toss in this hypocrisy from leftist group Media Matters, that bought guns illegally.  It was for protection they “need” of course.  Because some needs are greater than others.  Namely, their needs are greater than yours.

Sounds sinister, doesn’t it?  Here’s the NY Democrats asking him to keep it hush-hush, because leaking confiscation might “dampen the spirit of compromise”:

And here’s the list of Democrat demands, as posted by Assemblyman McLaughlin on his facebook page:

Here it is. This is the video where I was asked to keep the Democrat proposals for the NY SAFE Act away from the public. This list was given to me by a colleague and it is not confidential.

This bill was an attack on the 2nd amendment and the Democrats clearly wanted to dismantle the work of the Founding Fathers. None of these amendments were included in the final bill thanks to us fighting back. I will not stand silent while these unpatriotic proposals are pathetically thrown at us a 11 o’clock at night:

1. Confiscation of “assault weapons”
2. Confiscation o ten round clips
3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder’s information to be replaced to the public
5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as “assault weapons”
6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
11. State issued pistol permits
12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons

Shall not be infringed, huh?

Total annihilation of a natural right, a right preexisting the Constitution, but codified and affirmed by it – that tends to dampen the “spirit of compromise”.  This is a war of annihilation by the Democrats and leftists against your rights.

Not that this hasn’t been noted a lot before, but this particular example is almost parody:

One of those off-the-record moments was an event where President Obama joined reporters for drinks while the campaign was in Orlando, Fla., an event that Hastings partially details in the book.

The behavior of the assembled press corps was telling. Everyone, myself included, swooned. Swooned! Head over heels. One or two might have even lost their minds,” Hastings writes, as each reporter had a chance to speak personally with the president. “We were all, on some level, deeply obsessed with Obama, crushing hard, still a little love there. This was nerd heaven, a politico’s paradise, the subject himself moving among us — shaking our hands, slapping our shoulders!

Hastings reveals that the president spent “over an hour” with reporters who later stayed up late buzz over every detail of the evening.

“Did this inform our reporting, did seeing the man in the flesh, in a somewhat staged and casual setting, provide new, deep, and lasting insights?” asks a reflective Hastings in his book. “Yes, I would say, but again, I’m not at liberty to share.”

They worship him.

obamas second coming

And he demands they shut up or he destroys them:

Naturally, Hastings was chastised by many of his campaign colleagues for revealing some of the precious details of the event.

“The fear was that the White House would collectively punish all of us by revoking the already limited access or, worse, Obama might never come down and hang out with us again,” Hastings writes.

Campaign spokesperson Jen Psaki, Hastings notes, was furious and angrily phoned his editor Ben Smith for publishing details of the event. In response, the Obama campaign banished him from the campaign plane for a week.

If you aren’t part of the obsequious, drooling, swooning sycophant worshippers, you’re banished.  Also, it’s worth nothing this piece by Politico:

Obama has had his share of problems, amply noted, probed and press-released by Hill Republicans — including Solyndra, the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, and the bungled Fast and Furious program, which funneled weapons to drug dealers in an effort to trace a trail to kingpins. But they have been relatively easy to swat away so far.

Why do you suppose the murder of two US federal agents, the murders of hundreds (if not thousands by now) of our Mexican neighbors, have been “relatively easy to swat away”?  The press worships him.  They swoon in his presence, going weak in the knees for their progressive godling.

They won’t report on murders of American citizens.  They won’t report on Fast and Furious.  They won’t question why Obama exerted executive privilege to hush up hundreds of murders ordered by him.  They won’t question Benghazi, where our ambassador was murdered and dragged through the street.  They won’t question why a consulate was left defenseless.  They won’t question Paula Broadwell’s comments about secret CIA prisons (but they sure will hammer Petraeus).

Most of the media is a willing collaborator in this.  They are Obama’s zealots.  No wonder public opinion of the media has been so low.

In all this “new national debate on gun violence”, which is really just a big propaganda event against citizens rights, some things have gone almost totally forgotten.  Namely, how the Obama administration sent guns to Mexico with the intent of finding them at crime scenes in order to “prove” that US guns were going south.  Operation Fast and Furious ended up with hundreds (if not thousands) of dead Mexicans and two US federal agents dead (that we know of so far) – all because Obama and his DOJ wanted to push for more gun control.  After their scheme was found out, anti-gun forces still wanted to use their own murderous scheme by government to destroy US citizens’ rights.  It’s like a wife-beater getting caught and then beating his wife twice as hard because she “made him do it”.

Remember – they were mandated by the ATF to let guns go to Mexico, the Mexican authorities and the ATF in Mexico knew nothing.  This was the US government supplying guns to the cartels to “find” them at murder scenes:

Eric Holder’s DOJ has been stonewalling since this began to be exposed when US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed and Operation Fast and Furious and the ATF’s many Gunwalker plans have come to light (including Operation Castaway, and an unnamed operation in Texas that provided the gun that killed Jaime Zapata).  They’re still trying to stop any of this from coming to light, with Holder begging for courts to stop any further exposure of his crimes:

Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.

Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and “specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012.”

The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is “ironic” now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control. “It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,” Fitton said in a statement. “Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico. The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies.”

So each time you hear about Obama calling for more gun bans, remember – his administration intentinally murdered over 10 times the people at Sandy Hook in order have an excuse to try to take away your rights.

And they’re still covering it up.

The original article is here.

 

President Barack Obama and Vice President Jose...

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The link to Matt Drudge’s site is here.

 

This is getting serious folks, Joe “foot in the mouth,” Biden has now stated that,

 

The president is going to act…. There are executives orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required….

So the question is now, does Congress play dead and allow this to happen like they did with the President using an Executive Order to legislate from the White House and make the DREAM Act a reality?

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

From Pravda writer Stanislav Mishin:

Pravda newspaper front page (around 1950s). Th...

Pravda newspaper front page (around 1950s). The head article title says: From the Soviet Leadership (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

…it (gun control) is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question.

The gentleman from the former Soviet Union has it spot on. Control is the issue. Think about this for a few minutes. If the second amendment falls, what of the others? Free speech, illegal searches and seizures (already happening to some in the name of “security”), having a national guardsmen in your home,  and the right to not incriminate yourself just to name a few. A further look at amendments and the constitution suggest that if the 2nd amendment falls that it would also be possible for the 22nd amendment to be ignored as well. Think on the ramifications of that, a president seeking a third term….

Mr. Stanislav’s article discusses the disarmament of the Russian population, particularly the former members of the tsar’s army:

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Trust politicians much? I don’t. Again the idea of the slippery slope applies. If we give up our right to bear arms, what recourse do we have as, “The People,” if some or all of our enumerated rights disappear? I would go into unenumerated rights but Senator Fienstein just wouldn’t be able to comprehend my argument or I would have to direct her to John Locke if she knows who that is.

And now for the Soviet Union’s slippery slope:

… the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle.

Sounds like fun doesn’t it?

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” – Thomas Jefferson

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Let’s preface this appropriately by a quote from Sportsmen for Obama:

President Obama supports the rights of gun owners as guaranteed under the Second Amendment, and believes that the Constitution guarantees an individual’s right to bear arms.

Today from The Hill, as quoted on Meet The Lawbreaking Press:

President Obama on Sunday said he would make gun control a priority in his new term, pledging to put his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms in 2013.

The president is putting his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on firearms.  Contrast that with what the Constitution says: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Now read the full weight quote again.  This president is violating his oath of office as much as if he said he were putting his “full weight” behind passing new restrictions on free speech.

“I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it,” Obama said in an interview aired on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.”

Disarming the innocent does nothing to change anything.  But again, this isn’t about guns, it’s ultimately about control.

But he has also called on Congress to move quickly to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban and a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines.

I’ve addressed “Why High Capacity Magazines” just recently, but to touch on it in the shortest way possible, would you end up the victim of a home invasion robbery by five guys, would you rather have 6 rounds, 10 rounds, or 30 rounds?

“I’ve been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support,” the president said.

And banning handguns, and all guns that don’t belong to his government.  Yeah, we know.  “Shall not be infringed” means “a ban, banning these other things, background checks to exercise a right are all things I have historically supported.”  Yes, his oath of office is as meaningless now as it was when he was an Illinois senator.

“I’d like to get it done in the first year.  I will put forward a very specific proposal based on the recommendations that Joe Biden’s task force is putting together as we speak. And so this is not something that I will be putting off.”

Translation: “I have to do this before people catch on to it and realize it’s a feel-good measure that does nothing but expand government power.  I put Joe Biden in charge because he’s a mindless ideologue who doesn’t care about facts, and doesn’t listen to the other side, and can be trusted to ram this crap through and f*** the citizen back into the serf they should be.”

“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me.  I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools.  And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem,” he said.

Wait, what?

We joke sometimes about how Malia’s getting to the age now, and boys start calling and, you know, sort of, I always talk about how one of the main incentives for running again was continuing Secret Service protection to have men with guns around at all times

It’s not really a joke, though.

guns make us less safe obama hypocrisy

And the president who sent thousands of guns to narcoterrorist cartels to kill our Mexican neighbors then goes on:

“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can’t have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” Obama said.

Of course, the leftist-logic solution to this is…

ban all the guns

And of course, with regards to this statement:

“I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools,” Obama said. “And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.”

David Gregory, who interviewed him, and is a gun law breaker himself, has kids who go to school with Obama’s kids.  And they have 11 armed guards at the school.  The rest of you, the little people, don’t need your kids protected.  Guns are bad, m’kay, while the President and David “High Capacity Stupid” Gregory, have a squad of armed security who specialize in CQB.

secret service cqb

Because now, as it was for the thousands of years of human civilization before the American experiment began, laws are once again for you, not for the elites.  Welcome back to serfdom.

The Founders disagreed vehemently.

First off, 30 rounds is not “high capacity”, it’s standard capacity for an AR.  60 rounders are high capacity.  For a pistol, magazines over 10 rounds are rarely high-capacity.  A simple example is the Sig P226, which in 9mm normally carries 15 rounds.  High capacity magazines go beyond that, pushing 17-20 or even 30 rounds; as these are magazines that often don’t seat flush in the magazine well.  High-capacity versus standard capacity is dependent upon the model of firearm.  With that bit of gun-specifics out of the way…

Huffpo has this piece saying that Democrat congresswoman Diana Degette from Colorado and mindless anti-gunner NY Democrat congresswoman Carolyn “Shoulder-Thing-That-Goes-Up” McCarthy are pushing to introduce a “high-capacity” magazine ban on the first day of the new congress.

Still, backers are hopeful, noting that a ban on high-capacity magazines — which have been involved in many of the recent high-profile instances of mass gun violence — would be a smaller concession for gun-rights advocates than a broader assault weapons ban.

Translation: “We think we can get the stupid Fudds to go along with this because there are still a few Zumbos out there who think the Second Amendment is about duck hunting and their aristocratic priviledges and not about disarming the serfs… especially black people.”

The bill Democrats will introduce would limit magazines, belts, drums, feed strips and “similar device[s]” to 10 rounds of ammunition. It would allow people to hold on to the “large capacity ammunition feeding device[s]” that they currently own, but prohibit them from buying others or transferring the ones they have.

Because the best way to disarm the citizens is slowly, over a couple generations.  When they aren’t used to having freedom anymore, they’ll never notice.   How do you boil a frog?

The bill would also exempt retired and current law enforcement officials who use those devices for “purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty)” as well as contractors who have been licensed to carry the devices for security purposes required by federal law.

Because some animals are more equal than others, and the enforcers for the state should always have access to weapons that allow them to “shoot as many people as possible“.

“I’m not so naïve as to think that we can pass some law that will stop a deranged person from taking a gun and shooting people,” DeGette told The Huffington Post two weeks ago. “What I am interested in is making it as difficult as possible for that deranged person to shoot as many people as possible.”

Yes, no gun law can work, so we must pass a law against 300 million other citizens.  Clearly, only the state should have those tools that allow them to shoot as many people as possible.

oleg volk government killing

It’s somehow amazing to watch so-called liberals, who are really leftists, statists, progressives and/or liberal fascists (mostly the same thing in this regard), decree that a tool isn’t used for valid self-defense because it’s only used “to shoot as many people as possible”, and then declare that only the government should have them.  They completely ignore legitimate usages like that having more ammo is a good thing if you’re defending yourself against any type of attack, and that just because you could fire more in a defensive situation, you don’t necessarily have to fire more; and sometimes a few rounds can act as a deterrent (consider deterring a mob – one rare time where warning shots may be helpful).  Their ideology can’t allow them to understand that firearms are for self-defense.

Huffpo notes an interesting correction:

This article previously stated that no Republicans have expressed support for a ban on high-capacity magazines. A reader points out that Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wis.) has called such legislation “helpful,” while incoming Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) said he would “consider looking at some of the larger magazines” as a response to the Newtown shootings.

Yup, it’s helpful for big government RINOs who want to expand the state against the citizen.  It’s also helpful for RINOs who enjoy unemployment, and it’s helpful for the voters, so we know which ones to get primary out and replace with good representatives.

Speaking of good representatives, Texas’ newest Senator, Ted Cruz, has this to say on the subject:

Sadly, but predictably, it took just minutes for liberals to begin exploiting this horror to push their own gun-control schemes. One media pundit after another blathered on about their deep desire to strip away our Second Amendment rights — despite the fact that no gun-control laws could possibly have prevented this madman from stealing guns from a law-abiding citizen and murdering these children.

President Obama leapt on the bandwagon, renewing his call to come after our guns. And Senator Feinstein reintroduced an even more aggressive “assault weapons ban” that would, among other things, create a national firearms registry — a government list of those Americans who choose to exercise our constitutional rights.

This is wrong, and I will fight to stop it. It contravenes the Bill of Rights, and it is foolhardy policy — consistently, those jurisdictions that enact the most restrictive firearms policies have the highest crime and murder rates, and those jurisdictions that protect our right to keep and bear arms have the lowest.

He has a national petition going as well – not just for Texans.

For those honestly wondering what the deal with magazines is, consider this piece by The Truth About Guns:

…Because Government Troops Have High Capacity Magazines

When I am asked why I need a magazine for my “assault rifle” larger than 10 rounds, the answer is “because soldiers carry magazines larger than 10 rounds.” The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from more than just criminals. It was also understood that each sovereign state in the union would need to depend on its citizen militias to project power as needed. That meant well-armed men . . .

Our founding fathers also understood the danger of too much power in the hands of a government. They took great pains to hobble it through a system of checks and balances. The 2nd Amendment gave us the means of rebellion should the government go too far in encroaching on our freedom.

I’m not an anarchist or an insurrectionist. I think government is a good thing. Liberty must be ordered to be meaningful. To prosper, civil matters like contracts need to be adjudicated peacefully and fairly. Criminals must be punished sufficiently to suppress their activity.

That said, too much government is lethal. Untold millions suffer under the malignant brutality of all-powerful governments. Western European fascism, eastern European communism, communism in the Far East and Southeast Asia, totalitarian socialist nations from Cuba and throughout Central America. Over and over again, these governments resort to oppression and murder to maintain power over a helpless populace.

oleg volk responsible government agents liberals and dissidents

Socialists like Senator Feinstein and President Obama have access to the same data you and I do. They know that confiscating baseball bats would save more murder victims than confiscating AR-15s would. They know that the Clinton assault rifle ban did nothing meaningful to reduce crime. Why then are they hell bent on making a move that’s already proven worthless for the ostensible reason it’s been proposed?

We have no reason to think these college-educated adults have fully benign intent. What would they do different if they were working to set America up for a future tyranny that today’s Americans would openly rebel against?

We’re not necessarily talking today, or even tomorrow, but 10, 20, 50, or 100 years down the road.  The Second Amendment prevents far, far worse things.  Visit Heart Mountain and then try to say “it can’t happen here”.

Prominent Weather Underground terrorist Bill “We Didn’t Kill Enough Pigs” Ayers is a friend of Barack Obama, for those who’ve missed the last few years.

oleg volk rifle girl force multiplier for liberty