Howard Stern put one gun-control nut in his place, but it wasn’t a caller, it was his longtime producer Gary Dell’Abate! Bababooey, as listeners may know him, got into it with the famous shock jock last week over the number of guns people “should be allowed to own”. …and it went downhill from there. “You think a guy should have the right to own 300 guns?” Bababooey asked Stern. “Yes, I do,” Stern replied. “What’s the difference if he has one or three hundred?” When Stern asked him how many he thought people should be able to own, the producer said, “I don’t know. Whatever is legal.”
Republicans were elected in historic numbers in 2014 largely due to their promise to reverse Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty decree. Predictably, this promise was broken immediately. The consequences will be catastrophic not only for the Republican Party, which at this point there is little reason to support, but for America in general in all walks of life — including regarding the indispensable right to bear arms:
Mitch McConnell’s surrender on immigration reform last week could have major consequences for Second Amendment rights.
Deportation amnesty is one of the biggest threats to gun rights because it will add millions of anti-gun voters to the electorate in one fell swoop.
The vast majority of illegal aliens are Hispanics, and Hispanics are one of the most anti-gun demographics in the United States. According to the Pew Research Center, 62% of Hispanics prefer expanding gun control to percent gun rights, compared to 39% of white voters.
Refer to formerly patriotic, now rabidly anti–gun rights California to see how this will play out nationally.
This is among the many reasons our ruling class is displacing the American population with Third Worlders from across the undefended border. The scope of the treason that we are witnessing makes Vidkun Quisling a patriot by comparison.
The Japanese should have tried illegal immigration.
The Economic Collapse
Do you know what an “extremist” is? In the wake of the horrible terror attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in France, Barack Obama is speaking very boldly about the need to win the war against “extremists”, and he has announced plans to host a major global summit on “extremism” next month. And on the surface that sounds great. But precisely how are we supposed to determine whether someone is an “extremist” or not? What criteria should we use? As you will see below, your definition of an “extremist” may be far, far different from the definition that Barack Obama is using. When you do a Google search, you will find that an “extremist” is defined as “a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.” According to Wikipedia, “extremism” is “an ideology (particularly in politics or religion), considered to be far outside the mainstream attitudes of a society or to violate common moral standards. Extremism can take many forms, including political, religious and economic.” Please notice that neither of those definitions uses the word violence. In this day and age, you can be considered an “extremist” simply based on what you believe, and as you will see later in this article there are now tens of millions of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” according to official U.S. government documents.
When you use the word “extremist”, you may have in your mind a picture of ISIS fighters or the terrorists from the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
But for elitists such as Barack Obama, the word “extremist” has a much broader meaning. In recent years, it has become a code word for those that do not have an “enlightened” view of the world. If your views on politics, religion or social issues are extremely different from the liberal, progressive views of “the mainstream” (as defined by the mainstream media and by “mainstream” politicians such as Barack Obama), then they consider you to be an extremist.
Early in the presidency of George W. Bush, we were told that Islamic terrorists were the enemy. And so most of the country got behind the idea of the War on Terrorism. But over the years that has morphed into a War on Extremism. In fact, the Obama administration has gone so far as to remove almost all references to Islam from government terror training materials…
WASHINGTON — A record surge in recent firearms production and transactions have swamped the federal government’s automated registration system for select weapons, including machine guns. In a notice earlier this month to the firearms industry, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said it was temporarily suspending parts of its computerized system to shore up capacity in part to process the required registration and transfer of National Firearms Act covered weapons, which also include silencers, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and some explosive devices. Between 2005 and 2013, firearms act-related applications “skyrocketed by more than 380%” to nearly 200,000, according to the April 16 memo issued by ATF Deputy Assistant Director Marvin Richardson. The surge has contributed to a backlog of more than 70,000 applications. Richardson’s memo states that the ATF is “immediately” hiring 15 people to assist with the application processing and deploying 15 current employees to the task. The application deluge tracks a record annual increase in overall firearm production to more than 8.5 million guns in 2012, the most recent year for which the ATF collects such data. In 2011, there were 6.5 million firearms produced. The increase was aided by a spike in the manufacture of rifles and pistols, continuing a trend that has been highlighted by industry representatives for the past several years.
(Excerpt) Read more at patdollard.com …