Feds want to kill MORE free speech in re GUNS

SLAVES ARE DISARMEDThe federal government wants to regulate, essentially, anything and everything involving humans within its borders.

The Obama Administration now wants to regulate speech about firearms.

From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

NRA: Gun blogs, videos, web forums threatened by new Obama regulation

by Paul Bedard

Commonly used and unregulated internet discussions and videos about guns and ammo could be closed down under rules proposed by the State Department, amounting to a “gag order on firearm-related speech,” the National Rifle Association is warning.

In updating regulations governing international arms sales, State is demanding that anyone who puts technical details about arms and ammo on the web first get the OK from the federal government — or face a fine of up to $1 million and 20 years in jail.

What?  Is the federal government insane?  That would essentially outlaw gun blogs, gun magazines or any discussions about firearms.

Which, of course, would help the Obama Leftist Socialist Organization help to rid Americans of firearms — only so that the Proles, the Groundlings, the Serfs would be disarmed and more easily controlled.

Who would possibly put up with this?  The push is a governmental assault on the First Amendment itself — again, by the Obama Administration.

According to the NRA, that would include blogs and web forums discussing technical details of common guns and ammunition, the type of info gun owners and ammo reloaders trade all the time.

“Gunsmiths, manufacturers, reloaders, and do-it-yourselfers could all find themselves muzzled under the rule and unable to distribute or obtain the information they rely on to conduct these activities,” said the NRA in a blog posting.

Again, all perfectly in keeping with the Obama Administration’s wish to completely disarm the citizens of this nation, a true goal of Leftists globally.

I have always said that when you lose the Second Amendment, you will lose the First Amendment.

In this instance, here is Mr Obama and his Leftists attempting to hobble and denigrate both amendments simultaneously.  I couldn’t possibly have conjured that possible.  Except that, now, I certainly can.  This is certainly nothing if not innovative on behalf of the Obama Left.  With this addition: the prohibition also focuses on the internet as well, and seeks to clamp down on the internet.  Almost a Perfect Trifecta of prohibitive Leftism.

The NRA agrees.

 “This latest regulatory assault, published in the June 3 issue of the Federal Register, is as much an affront to the First Amendment as it is to the Second,” warned the NRA’s lobbying shop. “Your action is urgently needed to ensure that online blogs, videos, and web forums devoted to the technical aspects of firearms and ammunition do not become subject to prior review by State Department bureaucrats before they can be published,” it added.

What could possibly be the reason for eliminating speech about firearms?

At issue is the internet. State is updating International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which implement the federal Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The rules govern everything from guns to strategic bombers.

Please read the rest of the article for the details, because I don’t wish to take Bedard’s writing credit from him.

Never in my 60+ years on this planet have I seen my country’s freedoms so hideously and naked assaulted by my federal government.  I can only conclude one thing: this federal governments ultimately seeks total control and authority over each and every persons within its borders to the point where there can be no pushback, no dissension, no verbal or written disagreement on any level in any venue whatsoever.

For what other purpose would rules and regulations such as this exist?

BZ

P.S.

Vince Vaughn supports the Second Amendment.

 

Will REAL “courage” please stand up?

Courage 1 Courage 2 Courage 3 Courage 4With that, here is the Leftist definition of real courage.  With Leftists, it’s sacrificing the many for the few.  With Conservatives, it’s about sacrificing the few for the many.

Another in a continuing series of reasons why Leftists are in fact insane.

BZ

 

All I have to say about Bruce Jenner

BRUCE JENNERBruce Jenner is about as important to this nation as are the hairs in my nostrils or the pimples on my aged and flaccid ass.

Further, one can postulate that the looming “transgender” bullshit actually hurts and injures what some perceive as “feminism.”  As in: this nation is sacrificing the majority for the gay minority which, at most, represents roughly 2% of the population according to a Leftist Atlantic Magazine article.  Brainwashed GOWPs and Millennials think 25% of the nation is gay.  Oh so wrong.

In the meantime, the cerebellum-scrubbing continues.

From the Federalist.com:

How The Hypersexual Trans Movement Hurts Feminism

by Libby Emmons and David Marcus

A central theme of modern, or third-wave feminism is that women should not be treated merely as sexual objects. A central theme of the trans movement is the presentation of trans women as hypersexual objects. Feminism is not big enough for both of these themes. Either being a woman is essentially defined as being alluring to men, or it isn’t. Either the playboy bunny defines the essence of womanhood, or it doesn’t. At the moment, the trans movement opposes more than a century of feminism on this point. Third-wave feminists, in their eagerness to be allies, have abandoned this basic tenet. It must be reclaimed. 

In other words: trannies offend feminists.

Because they have become so due to their innate sexuality.  And here is the Sentence of the Year:

How have we arrived at a point in which feminists fundamentally alter their definition of womanhood to accommodate men?

Bingo.

Move on.  Nothing to see here.

BZ

 

Thomas Sowell: paying the price

Thomas-Sowell-QuoteSeldom do I quote the bulk of articles I consult for reference here in my blog, with rare exceptions.

This is one exception, and I gladly, gladly proffer credit to economist Thomas Sowell.

Take it away, sir, Mr Sowell:

Baltimore is now paying the price for irresponsible words and actions, not only by young thugs in the streets, but also by its mayor and the state prosecutor, both of whom threw the police to the wolves, in order to curry favor with local voters.

Now murders in Baltimore in May have been more than double what they were in May last year, and higher than in any May in the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the number of arrests is down by more than 50 percent.

Various other communities across the country are experiencing very similar explosions of crime and reductions of arrests, in the wake of anti-police mob rampages from coast to coast that the media sanitize as “protests.”

None of this should be surprising. In her carefully researched 2010 book, “Are Cops Racist?” Heather Mac Donald pointed out that, after anti-police campaigns, cops tended to do less policing and criminals tended to commit more crimes.

If all this has been known for years, why do the same mistakes keep getting made?

Mainly because it is not a mistake for those people who are looking out for their own political careers. Critics who accuse the mayor of Baltimore and the Maryland prosecutor of incompetence, for their irresponsible words and actions, are ignoring the possibility that these two elected officials are protecting and promoting their own chances of remaining in office or of moving on up to higher offices.

Racial demagoguery gains votes for politicians, money for race hustling lawyers and a combination of money, power and notoriety for armies of professional activists, ideologues and shakedown artists.

So let’s not be so quick to say that people are incompetent when they say things that make no sense to us. Attacking the police makes sense in terms of politicians’ personal interests, and often in terms of the media’s personal interests or ideological leanings, even if what they say bears little or no resemblance to the facts.

Of course, all these benefits have costs. There is no free lunch. But the costs are paid by others, including men, women and children who are paying with their lives in ghettos around the country, as politicians think of ever more ways they can restrict or scapegoat the police.

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice has been leading the charge, when it comes to presuming the police to be guilty — not only until proven innocent, but even after grand juries have gone over all the facts and acquitted the police.

Not only Attorney General Holder, but President Obama himself, has repeatedly come out with public statements against the police in racial cases, long before the full facts were known. Nor have they confined their intervention to inflammatory words.

The Department of Justice has threatened various local police departments with lawsuits unless they adopt the federal government’s ideas about how police work should be done.

The high cost of lawsuits virtually guarantees that the local police department is going to have to settle the case by bowing to the Justice Department’s demands — not on the merits, but because the federal government has a lot more money than a local police department, and can litigate the case until the local police department runs out of the money needed to do their work.

By and large, what the federal government imposes on local police departments may be summarized as kinder, gentler policing. This is not a new idea, nor an idea that has not been tested in practice.

It was tested in New York under Mayor David Dinkins more than 20 years ago. The opposite approach was also tested when Dinkins was succeeded as mayor by Rudolph Giuliani, who imposed tough policing policies — which brought the murder rate down to a fraction of what it had been under Dinkins.

Unfortunately, when some people experience years of safety, they assume that means that there are no dangers. That is why New York’s current mayor is moving back in the direction of Mayor Dinkins. It is also the politically expedient thing to do.

And innocent men, women and children — most of them black — will pay with their lives in New York, as they have in Baltimore and elsewhere. 

Thomas Sowell has said and written it.

And I believe it.

BZ