Category Archives: Second Amendment

Democrats don’t want Trump to speak in public; so what’s Biden doing speaking in public? That’s right: insulting voters

Posted on by

As is his frequent wont, when you counter or fail to agree with Joe Biden, he wants to “take it outside” and beat your ass.

From FoxNews.com:

Biden, on video, lashes out at Detroit worker in profanity-laced gun dispute

by Tyler Olson, Allie Raffa

Former Vice President Joe Biden got into a heated and profanity-laced argument with a worker at a Fiat-Chrysler auto plant Tuesday while touring a factory in Detroit, after the individual accused the Democratic presidential candidate of trying to take away his Second Amendment rights.

“You’re full of shit … I support the Second Amendment,” Biden shot back, stressing he’s not going to take guns away.

This after Biden stated he’d appoint Beto O’Rourke to do just that. From NationalReview.com:

Biden, Beto, and Gun Control

by John R Lott, Jr

November 2020 will be known as the gun-control election.

Tuesday night, former Vice President Joe Biden announced that Beto O’Rourke “will be the one who leads” his gun-control effort. “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15,” O’Rourke, a former Texas congressman and Democratic presidential candidate himself, famously promised in a debate in September. They are “weapons of war, designed to kill people efficiently on a battlefield,” he warned.

O’Rourke vowed to “buy back every single assault weapon” but said that he would use force if people didn’t voluntarily agree to selling their guns.

After O’Rourke’s comments, President Donald Trump tweeted that O’Rourke had “convinced many that Dems just want to take your guns away.” Biden has now locked himself into that position.

So I’d say yes, citizens are justified in their concerns that Joe Biden will eviscerate the Second Amendment.

Here is the video of presidential candidate Joe Biden threatening to beat a citizen because he disagrees with Joe’s position on the Second Amendment.

Apparently, this is how Joe Biden goes about trying to convince a citizen that he or she should vote for him.

Or this view on YouTube.

Or this story from CNN:

Then from DallasNews.com:

Beto ‘Hell yes’ O’Rourke’s endorsement has Joe Biden fending off allegation that he’s a gun-grabber

by Todd J Gillman

Auto worker in Detroit confronts former VP, invoking Texan’s stance on AR-15s as he accuses Biden of trying to undermine Second Amendment rights

WASHINGTON — Beto O’Rourke’s endorsement at a Dallas honky tonk on the eve of Super Tuesday gave Joe Biden a huge jolt in Texas last week. But it also came at a price, associating him with a demand for mandatory buybacks of assault-style weapons that came back to bite him Tuesday, and could haunt him into the fall.

As the former vice president stumped in Detroit, an auto worker accused him of being a gun-grabber and cited his new alliance with O’Rourke, who memorably declared at a Houston presidential debate in September that “hell, yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

That inflamed gun rights advocates, who view “mandatory buyback” as a euphemism for confiscation that would violate their constitutional rights.

As well it should. Our nation is unlike any other. We are not the UK, not Germany, not Australia. Our history is different from every other nation. This country is a great experiment in progress. If it were not a great country, streaming brilliance, goodness, heart, freedom, liberty — then people would be avoiding it. They, not surprisingly, are not.

The NRA used the Biden-O’Rourke alliance to paint the Democratic front-runner as a dangerous radical on guns, asserting that he would name the Texan as his “gun control czar,” which may not be much of a stretch.

Correct. Not much of a stretch at all. Which is why the citizen in Detroit reacted as he did. asked questions as he did, made comments as he did.

“I’m going to guarantee you, this is not the last you’ve seen of this guy,” Biden told a raucous crowd at Gilley’s, his arm on O’Rourke. “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one that leads this effort. I’m counting on you.”

And so let’s examine the bottom line at this point in time, Tuesday, March 10th of 2020.

The Demorat Party is embracing:

  • A 77-year-old angry white early Alzheimer’s patient, or
  • A 78-year-old angry white Communist who has enacted a total of 7 bills in 29 years in Congress.

Biden: “Don’t try me, pal, you want to go outside?” Outbursts like this and easy anger are symptoms of early onset Alzheimer’s.

Even absent that, this is no way to attempt to “win over” the people from whom you want a vote.

– “You are full of shit”
– “Shush!”
– “You don’t need an AR-14”
– “Don’t be a horses ass”
– “An AR is a machine gun!”
– “I’m not working for you”

Conclusion: Biden is either

1. Stupid, or
2. Addled.

You don’t need a president who is either or both.

Then there are the Demorats and Leftists who are insisting that Trump stop campaigning “because Coronavirus.” From TheAtlantic.com:

And this afternoon, Biden and his Democratic rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, announced within a span of minutes that they were canceling their planned rallies in Cleveland tonight ahead of the Ohio primary next week. The campaigns said the cancellations were made out of concern “for health and safety” and after consultation with local officials. The separate decisions came after Ohio’s governor, Mike DeWine, a Republican, said that public-health experts had recommended banning spectators from sporting events and concerts.

However:

Biden and Sanders have each criticized Trump for bungling and then downplaying the outbreak, yet until today, they have continued to hold rallies even as conferences, university classes, and other large gatherings are being canceled around the country.

CNN reports:

Trump campaign ‘proceeding as normal’ during coronavirus pandemic

by Betsy Klein and Sara Westwood

(CNN)As the novel coronavirus spreads across the globe and the United States, President Donald Trump’s campaign is insisting the pandemic will not impact his reelection scheduling and strategy.

“What we’re doing at the campaign is proceeding as normal,” Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh told reporters on a conference call Sunday.

So Time.com writes with great glee:

Why Coronavirus May Be the Biggest Threat Yet to Donald Trump’s Re-Election

by Brian Bennett

The biggest threat to Donald Trump’s re-election in 2020 may be COVID-19.

The spread of the novel coronavirus is shaping up as a test of Trump’s core pitch to voters: that they are better off than they were when he took office. Sharp drops in the stock market, school and office closures, crashing oil prices and widespread disruptions to other major industries have some Trump supporters concerned that the virus is triggering a new financial crisis that could hurt Trump’s bid for a second term more than any political test he’s faced so far.

“Remember,” say the Demorats and Leftists, “it’s Trump who enabled Coronavirus and tanked the stocks and exposed you to destruction, chaos and a terrible death.” They wish. Oh yes, they wish. From FreeBeacon.com:

House Dem Admits They Block Legislation Because ‘We Don’t Want to Give the President a Win’

by Collin Anderson, 2-4-20

Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D., N.J.) expressed frustration with her Democratic colleagues at a recent town hall, admitting they block legislation because they “don’t want to give the president a win.”

Speaking at a Livingston, New Jersey, town hall on Thursday, Sherrill revealed the “shockingly different mindset” of congressional Democrats who prioritize resisting President Donald Trump over passing legislation that could help their constituents.

“When I go, you know, I’ve gone up to people and said, ‘I need to get this piece of legislation passed,’ and they say ‘Oh yeah, we just passed it,'” Sherrill said. “I said, ‘Yeah, we just passed it. I need the Senate to pass it and I need the president to sign it,’ and they said ‘Well, we don’t want to give the president a win.'”

Yet and still it appears that Sanders and Biden continuing to campaign until today is just peachy nifty.

The real issue is that they can’t pull the numbers that a Trump rally can. Thusly, Trump needs to stop campaigning because, well, “it’s not fair.”

Tough shit.

BZ

 

 

 Share

Libertarian John Stossel tries to get a gun permit in New York

Posted on by

My. Imagine what results there might be.

As an aside, if you didn’t know (and likely you don’t), John Stossel is about 5’7″ tall and weighs, on a good day, about $1.25. “Delicate” and “bony” would be apropos. In New York City he has YOUR NEXT VICTIM HERE stamped on his forehead. Stossel is as imposing as a puffy Bugs Bunny slipper. I should know. I interviewed him at Freedom Fest in Las Vegas, 2017.

So, did John Stossel, Libertarian, get a gun permit in New York?

“REJECTED.”

BZ

 

 Share

AB 2888: losing more gun rights in California by “allegation”

Posted on by

And without due process.

This is eligible for a vote in the California Senate.

Assembly Bill 2888, sponsored by Assembly Member Phillip Ting (D-19), would expand the list of those eligible to file gun violence restraining orders (called a GVRO) beyond the currently authorized reporters — which typically include immediate family and law enforcement.  The new list is expanded to employers, coworkers and employees of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months. GVRO’s can remove a person’s rights without due process and not because of a criminal conviction or mental adjudication, but based on third party allegations.

Read that again:

GVRO’s can remove a person’s rights without due process and not because of a criminal conviction or mental adjudication, but based on third party allegations. 

Allegations.

Verbiage from the bill itself:

AB 2888, as amended, Ting. Gun violence restraining orders.
Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. Existing law requires the ex parte order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order. Existing law also authorizes a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. Existing law authorizes renewal of a gun violence restraining order within 3 months of the order’s expiration. Petitions for ex parte, one-year, and renewed gun violence restraining orders may be made by an immediate family member of the person or by a law enforcement officer.
This bill would similarly authorize, but not require, an employer, a coworker, a mental health worker who has seen the person as a patient in the last 6 months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence restraining order.

“One year or renewed gun violence restraining order.”

Let’s now do what BZ calls the Logical Extension.

Have you ever heard of “SWATTING”?

It’s a situation wherein people place a prank call to local 911 numbers in an attempt to bring about the dispatch of a large number of armed police officers to a specific address — a real address — due to the severe described nature of the call. Sometimes even SWAT units themselves are sent. How are they to know until after their arrival and the situation is assessed?

Fast forward to the potential passage of AB 2888. Imagine Leftists. Imagine Leftists know that _______ is a Conservative and may possess firearms because, perhaps, he or she has talked about hunting or target shooting at work.

Imagine that someone in the above categories — a co-worker perhaps — decides to inject their SJW or Progressive or Antifa or Socialist or Leftist beliefs into that person’s life by making allegations. You’ll notice there are no consequences or actions delineated in the bill for those doing so. Law enforcement departments and District Attorney offices in California already wantonly fail to prosecute allegations of numerous crimes later proven to be false. Public Defenders call that a “chilling effect” in California. Gosh. Can’t have people dissuaded from making false allegations of rape, other crimes or “weapons violations” in California, can we?

Imagine said Leftist placed a call alleging X, Y or Z about their Conservative co-worker.

And how are these orders frequently acquired? No, not in court. But over a telephonic device to judges on standby for such “exigent” calls. They are authorized verbally by the judge via a set of circumstances described over said telephonic device, customarily by peace officers who have been contacted and assigned the event.

The order is valid “no later than 21 days” — up to a period of one year.

Jackson Browne: “don’t think it won’t happen just because it hasn’t happened yet.”

California, Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots are coming for your firearms. Make no mistake whatsoever.

And they couldn’t care less what rights are trampled or who gets in their way.

BZ

 

 Share

Background checks for ammo: new federal bill

Posted on by

In California, beginning July 19th of 2019, all ammunition in the state must be purchased through a vendor licensed by the Department of Justice and every potential purchaser of ammunition will be required to undergo a background check via a state system before receipt of said ammunition.

We all know that the corruptive, Leftist, oppressive liberty-and-freedom-killing practices in California bleed over into other areas, states and venues. So should this be shocking to anyone? From Guns.com:

National bullet control bill would add background checks to ammo sales

by Chris Eger

Democrats introduced a bicameral proposal this week to force those who would buy bullets to first go through a background check process.

In measures proposed in the House by Florida’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Senateby Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal, would-be ammunition buyers would have to be first vetted by the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System. The lawmakers say the move to add controls to bullet sales would help leave criminals with empty guns.

“Ammunition sales should be subject to the same legal requirements as firearm sales, and that includes instant background checks,” Blumenthal said. “The same laws that prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms also prohibit them from amassing arsenals of ammunition, with one major loophole: there are no background checks for ammunition sales to enforce the law.”

But wait; it gets better. Don’t think this isn’t purposeful.

The move would force potentially millions of ammunition purchases into the already swamped NICS clearinghouse where transfers would be approved, delayed or denied. While the language of the proposals is not available, a statement from Wasserman Schultz’s office said that federally licensed gun dealers could use their existing system to process checks for ammo buyers while those who did not have an FFL would either work through an existing licensee or seek a license of their own.

Gosh, this wouldn’t be some kind of retributive reaction after DWS demanded “her laptop” back form the US Capitol Police after its chief refused to return it — and she threatened him — because of an investigation into her Pakistani I.T. staffer, would it? Nah. Didn’t think so either.

Wasserman Schultz’s bill, H.R.5383, has 34 Dems signed on as co-sponsors and has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Blumenthal’s companion measure, S.2627, has likewise been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and is co-sponsored by U.S. Sens. Chris Murphy, D-Conn, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI.

So let me tell you how this will work: it will work as well as background checks for firearms. And we know the efficacy of that program. I’d wager that few if any mass shootings in the past, say, two or three years would have been avoided by firearms background checks. In fact, many suspects did pass prior checks. Or: they acquired the firearms from other persons and places. Or the federal government didn’t do its own job — in the case of Devin Kelley.

One thing we know for certain: not one mass shooter — not one — has been an NRA member. If you know of one, I’d like a name and evidence, not just hearsay.

Just as Barack Obama was one of the greatest firearms sellers in the history of the United States, this law will be one of the greatest ammunition sellers. Only now, just as homes are burglarized and firearms stolen, so now will be ammunition.

Who does this hurt? Criminals? Of course not. That’s their day job. It’s in their job description. It will instead hurt Americans who adhere to the laws

And that is purposeful. The point isn’t to keep ammunition out of the hands of criminals. The point is to keep ammunition out of the hands of every civilian in the US, to the point where firearms become meaningless. As we all know, the terminus of gun control is firearms confiscation and utter proscription. Translated: a purely defenseless society.

Translated: you can have the car, golly yes. Who’d ever take away your cars, your independence and your ability to drive wherever you want whenever you want? Don’t be daft! We’re just going to remove your ability to acquire rubber and linked compounds so you can’t purchase tires. But hell, you still have your car, right? So it’s not about car control, you see? Don’t be unreasonable. (Don’t think we’re not writing a bill to make sure you won’t be able to purchase wheels. C’mon. Baby steps. After all, you’ll still have your car.)

Who would have firearms, then? The government. Only. Period. And, oh yeah. Politicians and judges and celebrities and “high ranking officials” would still somehow magically manage to keep the firearms for their civilian bodyguards. Can’t have you lowlifes, you proles, you serfs, you groundlings, you grubbers, you deplorables, you vassals, you chattel, you underlings, you lackeys, you bond servants, you puppets interfering with your intellectual and political betters. Can we?

Incremental. Baby steps.

Think frog. Think boiling pot.

The logic will be this: hey, we’re coming for your guns because, after all, what use are they really without bullets?

Next up to bid?

Handloaders.

Trust me on this.

BZ

P.S.

“You don’t really need that gunpowder, do you? It’s an environmental hazard, after all. Those cute little machines and presses? Sure, you can keep ’em. Oh, and those bullet thingies have to go, also.”

 

 Share