Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

Μολών λαβέ, bitches

The Mask Falls: Left Calling for “Gun-Free Society”

I have a better idea: how about a gun-grabbing-liberal-free society?  Whether they realize it or not, that will be the end result of any attempt at undermining the 2nd Amendment:

They had previously lied about their goals, claiming to be in favor of “sensible gun safety measures” or other rot.

But now they’re becoming more honest: a Washington Post editor just explicitly called for a “gun free society.

A Gun Free Society.By Fred Hiatt
Washington Post Editor

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Note that he claims that using these words is dangerous, because the NRA would interpret them as a slippery slope argument to claim that the left wants a gun free society.

But that is precisely what Hiatt wants.

It’s not just the bedwetters in the press, either.  0bama has nothing left to lose at this point, and his domestic and foreign policy “legacy,” such as it ever was, is a total shambles.  He’s already threatened to use his pen and his phone if the feckless weasels in Congress won’t bend to his will.  If you’re already set on destroying America, why not just go for the brass ring and make sure it’s “blown up real good?”

Gun-grabbers who engage in SWATting should be prosecuted and imprisoned

In case you haven’t previously heard of it, “SWATting” is the practice of calling in a false report of criminal activity to 911, usually with the intent of getting a SWAT team to show up and catch the victim unaware.  It’s not just highly dangerous, it’s illegal…but laws apparently aren’t for moonbats these days.

The latest tactic of the gun-grabbers is to call the cops if they merely see you open-carrying:

Moms Demand SWATting

“You see a GunFilth waving its penis substitute, exit, call police. Armed robbery in progress.” So wrote Twitter user “Little Black Dog” on September 13 of this year.

The injunction was a particularly colorful one, but the idea behind it, alas, is not as uncommon as one might wish. “I see you #opencarry with a gun in public,” a man named “joe villa” threatened earlier this week, “i’m calling the cops. psycho behaving erratic. make your day.” A translation for the more literate among us: “The law be damned; exercise your rights under the law and I’ll threaten your life.”

“Take a look through the comments threads on Moms Demand Action’s Facebook page,” Bearing Arms’s Bob Owens tells me, “and you’ll see a lot of this.” “Not,” he clarifies,

from the leaders of the group. But it is a mindset popular among the followers. On there, on the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence — ironically — and on GunFreeZone.net, you’ll notice commenters advocating that people call the police and exaggerate what is going on, hoping to get the cops to come in.

This is inexcusable.  They’re basically looking to get people killed for daring to exercise their rights.  Anyone who SWATs a gun owner should be charged with attempted murder.  If the situation escalates and someone is killed (as happened with Erik Scott), the charge should be upgraded to murder.

Vox Uses Hilariously Inaccurate Photo On NRA Hit Piece

v6mzo3

Vox Uses Hilariously Inaccurate Photo On NRA Hit Piece

Vox attached the logo of a New Deal agency to an NRA hit piece on Twitter Thursday, apparently confusing the National Rifle Association with the National Recovery Administration established by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.

“The NRA’s president supported ‘sharply restricting’ guns in 1934,” Vox tweeted, with a photo of the National Recovery Administration logo attached. “Then things changed.” The story the tweet linked to was of course referring to the National Rifle Association.

“Journalism is dead,” remarked one twitter user who saved the tweet before it was deleted.

Once more for Vox’s edification: This:

NewDealNRA

is not the same organization as this:

220px-National_Rifle_Association.svg

The proper response to collectivist gun-grabbers

flippingthebirdHe must be a Sipsey Street reader. “Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.”

You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach. Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”

[…]

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

You’re known by the company you keep

…and Michael Bloomberg has some rather unsavory company indeed in his gun-grabbing cabal:

Another (Former) Bloomberg Mayor Facing Multitude of Charges – The Truth About Guns

“A statewide investigating grand jury has recommended that criminal charges be filed against former Harrisburg Mayor Stephen R. Reed, the Harrisburg Patriot-News reported. “State Attorney General Kathleen Kane … calls the investigation into Reed one of the ‘most disturbing cases of public corruption this office has investigated.’”

“Former mayor of Pa. capital charged with 499 criminal counts,” Fox News documented in its report. “If convicted on all counts and given consecutive maximum sentences, Reed could face up to 2,439 years in prison.”

Whenever I see reports of a mayor in trouble with the law, my first instinct any more is to see if he or she is one of Bloomberg’s Bürgermeisters.

Here’s the rogues’ gallery:

Missing the point of “debate”

Gotta maintain that epistemic closure, I guess:

Everytown: We’ll Only Debate If Our Sparring Partners Agree With Us

Here’s transcript of the relevant part of his answer:

Everytown is committed to an evidence-based approach. We speak with criminologists, legislators across the country and we welcome debate. In fact, we’re thrilled that there is an increased amount of research in this area, and an increased amount of conversation about what laws are effective to keeping guns out of the hands of felons and domestic abusers. So, when there’s a credible scientist — somebody who wants to have a real constructive conversation about this — we’re going to be there. But folks who seek to minimize the grave issue of gun violence in this country – or to draw attention away from the real issues to themselves – that’s not a conversation I think it’s productive to be a part of.

Obviously, the speaker is doing little more than begging the question. “Sure we’ll talk to people who disagree” he appears to be saying, “but only if they agree. Because to disagree with the claims that we are making is to take attention away from the claims that we are making, which are true by virtue of their having been made.”

The real “war on women” is Democrats’ attempts to disarm them

Rape Survivor Goes Off on Lawmakers Over Anti-Gun Law: ‘Why Can’t I Have a Firearm to Protect Myself?!’

A rape survivor made a compelling case in favor of reforming Maryland’s “may issue” concealed carry laws during a Senate committee hearing last week, explaining to lawmakers why women need to be able to defend themselves.
“I need you to know this is so incredibly difficult for me, but I feel like if I don’t humanize this, if I don’t make it clear how this legislation actually affects your daughters, your mothers, the women of this state, then it’s all just a bunch of numbers,” Jacqueline Kahn told Maryland lawmakers.
Kahn then claimed that a man was arrested in her backyard. He was in possession of duct tape and scissors, she said.
“I wish I could tell you that’s the only time I’ve been stalked, or that’s the only man who has stalked anyone in the state of Maryland. But there’s a huge number of women, who like me have been raped, who like me have been sexually assaulted — and we want the right to be able to do what we would be allowed to do throughout the majority of the rest of the United States,” she said.

Must-see video, which starts with one feckless legislator trying to flee the session:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD4J1kscK1Q]