Image via thedailybeast.com
by AWR Hawkins
On Monday, Florida’s Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey doubled down on last week’s pro-self-defense comments by making clear that police respond to 911 calls in minutes but criminals take lives in mere seconds.
On June 9 Breitbart News reported Ivey’s earlier comments, wherein he urged citizens to get a gun, get mentally prepared, and let terrorists scratch and claw to defend their own lives for a change.
No matter who you are or what your position is on guns, there is no denying the fact that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun–or a knife–is an armed and well-prepared citizen or law enforcement officer. There is no doubt that as soon as 911 is called law enforcement is on the way, however, until they arrive it is up to you and those with you to neutralize or eliminate the threat.
During a June 12 appearance on Fox & Friends, Ivey reiterated his message, stressing that police response to a 911 call is minutes for “the best law enforcement agencies” but “a violent criminal can take your life in a second.” He added, “So we need our citizens to be well prepared, to have already though out their emergency plan. If they’re concealed carry holders, carry their gun with them. It’s not doing any good at the house or in the car.”
Ivey stressed that “there is no way to predict where the next attack is coming from or even the next active shooter, so we want out citizens to be prepared to be the first line of defense.”
He stressed that terrorists are not prepared to be attacked “and when somebody turns it on them, their plan falls to pieces.”
On a day when legislation benefiting women and black colleges and universities was signed with much pomp and circumstance, President Trump quietly followed through on his pledge to defend the Second Amendment by signing the repeal of Barack Obama’s Social Security gun ban. The U.S, House voted to repeal the ban on February 2 and the Senate voted to repeal it on February 15.
The ban was fashioned behind closed doors in the summer of 2015 and Breitbart News reported:
The specific details of the ban are unknown, as it is being put together “outside of public view.” But the LA Times reports that a ban on gun possession due to inability to handle finances would be sweeping; that it would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”
The Times notes that the finances of roughly “4.2 million” Social Security beneficiaries are handled by someone else.
As bits and pieces of the ban continued to be revealed over the following months, it was evident that Social Security beneficiaries who required help managing their finances were in jeopardy of losing their Second Amendment rights. An overview of the ban–provided by the Social Security Administration (SSA)–showed it was structured so that persons under mental duress and requiring help with their finances could be investigated by the SSA, then turned over to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to be barred from gun purchases.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com …
Image from sgvtribune.com
When Olympic athletes speak out in favor of “progressive” causes, they make front page news in the United States. But when a multiple gold medal winner at multiple Olympics speaks in favor of the Second Amendment and self defense, it was the foreign press that covered the issue. Multiple gold medal winner Kim Rhode spoke out on 5 August in Rio de Janeiro. From the independent.co.uk:
Ms Rhode said she was “becoming more vocal” about her opposition to what she sees as restrictive new gun control measures, including in the context of recent terror attacks. “When you look at these events… they’ve been occurring in some of the strictest gun law countries in the world,” she said.
“You have Paris, you have San Bernardino, which was actually in a gun free zone… in that five minutes or 10 minutes or 20 minutes in some cases that it takes for [police] to get there, how do you want to stand there? I would rather have my second amendment right.”
by Bob Owens
Hillary Clinton is running the first presidential campaign in the history of the United States based explicitly on the gutting of a core Constitutional and human right.
Clinton has made attacking the human right of self-defense a key part of her 2016 campaign, and if she’s elected—and down-ballot Democrats manage to take control of the Senate and/or House—she’s poised to be able to destroy the gun rights of American citizens in three distinct ways.
- Place progressive, anti-gun justices on the Supreme Court
- Pass bans on a wide range of common firearms
- repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)
Stacking the Supreme Court With Anti-Gun Justices
There is already one opening on the U.S. Supreme Court following the death of textualist Justice Antonin Scalia, and there are likely to be more justices who either retire, or simply pass on due their advanced ages in the next four years.
Progressive Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 83. Moderate Anthony Kennedy is 80. Liberal-moderate Stephen Breyer is 78.
The next President will appoint a replacement for Scalia, and there has been some terrifying speculation on who that may be.
If the next President is Clinton, and Democrats manage to win control of the Senate in a “wave” election, there’s a good chance that she’s not only be able to appoint a left-leaning justice, but one with radical progressive ideology. Two of the other three elderly justices (Ginsburg, Breyer) may also retire if Clinton were to take office, to be replaced by much younger and more radicalized justices. I don’t think Justice Kennedy would chose to retire under Clinton, but at 80 years old, health issues forcing retirement, or simply death, are always a possibility.
Image via 1800politics.com
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey penned an article for The Boston Globe stating that she is banning all new “assault weapons” which she also calls “weapons of war” in her ignorance.
In the article for The Boston Globe, she blamed the Orlando terrorist killings on an AR-15 which isn’t accurate on any level.
Her ban prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. Gun manufacturers have been selling rifles without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock and she defines them as a copycat or duplicate.
Healey has made them illegal as well as any “watered-down version”.
If the gun operates in essentially the same way as a banned weapon or is a copy, it is illegal. No “assault” weapon can be sold, altered or not.
This directive likely bans all AR and AK style rifles in Massachusetts.
People who already own the guns can keep them – for now – the AG assures them. How kind of her.
Healey claims that: In the face of utter inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence. If Washington won’t use its power to get these guns off our streets, we will. Not only do we have the legal authority to do so, we have a moral obligation to do so.
She has a moral obligation to uphold the Constitution and she has no legal right to pass laws which is what she is doing.
What she is doing doesn’t do a thing about the criminals and gangs. All she is controlling are lawful gun owners. The leftists always say they want guns off the streets and she also says that in this article. To get the guns off the streets, they have to go after guns, lawful guns period.
We have witnessed recent radical Islamic terror attacks and thanks to the lack of any real opposition, the left has been able to make the failed terrorism policies of this administration into conversations about gun violence and Islamophobia. Some even blamed the GOP for the Orlanda attack.
Instead of dealing with the issues, side issues become the issues and our legislators come up with more big government programs and waste more money that will never be accounted for. They have just such a program coming up next week.
Senator Ted Cruz conducted a hearing last week in which it was revealed that the Department of Homeland Security under Jeh Johnson has been deleting counter-terrorism research and terminology. It is being done at the request of Muslim Brotherhood organizations.
When Johnson was asked about it by Cruz, he arrogantly stated that he knew nothing of it. He has no intention of checking it out either.
One might have thought the Republicans would put up a fight but they haven’t. So far they have rejected anti-gun measures that take away our Due Process rights and we must be grateful for that. However, they did cave on the terrorism issue in general.
The Republicans will take part in a vote on a new bill H.R. 5611 which throws more big government and more unaccountable money at a department that is meant to grow into a Muslim community counter-terrorism program. The Office for Partnerships to Prevent Terrorism will engage Muslims to counter the terrorism by appointing yet another unelected bureaucrat – an assistant secretary – who will be accountable to no one in Congress.