Speaking at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina on Tuesday, Donald Trump made an offhand comment that “Second Amendment people” might have some unspecified way to stop a President Hillary Clinton’s judges from abolishing gun rights.
“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” Trump said. “By the way, and if she gets to pick — if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Trump’s remarks are a bit garbled, but they appear to be a joke that gun owners could use their weaponry to prevent the government from rolling back their gun rights.
Paranoid white people afraid that brown people are taking “their
country” away from them. That’s what gun sales are all about. And
don’t tell me about that one Black guy you know that has a gun
collection. Outliers do not make a trend invalid, OK?
Hey, America, how many people are going to have to die before you realise the urgency of stricter gun control?
I literally do not care about your right to bear arms. You piss and moan because people want to take your guns away, when there are families out there who are crying, grieving, and feeling an insurmountable loss that can never be replaced because their child is dead. Taking your guns away is a much better solution than taking a life away. Don’t be so fucking selfish!
“I’m definitely becoming more vocal because I see the need,” Rhode told the Guardian. “We just had six laws that were passed in California that will directly affect me. For example, one of them being an ammunition law. I shoot 500 to 1,000 rounds a day, having to do a background check every time I purchase ammo or when I bring ammo out for a competition or a match – those are very, very challenging for me.”
When asked about the mass shootings in the world, Rhode went straight for the jugular.
“When you look at these events that have been occurring, they’ve been occurring in some of the strictest gun law countries in the world,” Rhode said. “You have Paris, you have San Bernardino, which was actually in a gun-free zone, so, yeah, it’s actually something that you take into consideration.”
“For me personally, I realize the first responsibility of a police officer is to respond to an incident and for me personally, in that five minutes or 10 minutes or 20 minutes in some cases that it takes for them to get there, how do you want to stand there? I would rather have my second amendment right,” she added.
Keep your 12-gauge, buy a handgun if you want. Go hunting with your 30-06. But there is no reason a civilian needs to have an assault weapon. And as far as second amendment rights go, I don’t think the writers of the early state constitutions had the Sig Sauer MCX in mind. If you’re worried about protecting your family, buy a handgun. A handgun! You don’t need an assault weapon.
After Lying For 30 Years, New York Times Finally Admits “Assault Weapons Are A Myth”
In an amazing editorial the NY Times admits that “assault weapon” is a
made up term created by anti-gun Democrats to scare low information
voters. Stunningly they also admit there’s no proof the “assault
weapons” ban had any impact on crime.
It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats
created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault
weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it
seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had
been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000.
This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles,
shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in
about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.
Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but
gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a
handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they
were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme
Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at
home for self-defense.)
Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both
legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed
for use in war zones.
On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons
ban into law. It barred the manufacture and sale of new guns with
military features and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. But the law
allowed those who already owned these guns — an estimated 1.5 million
of them — to keep their weapons.
The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic
losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study
found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.
The Democrats created then banned a class of weapons by purposefully deceiving the American people.
“Assault weapons” is a made-up term, used to scare
citizens into thinking that military weapons were commonly being sold
and used on the streets of the United States. Thanks to a dishonest and
incompetent media, millions of Americans thought (and still think) that
machine guns could simply be purchased at the local gun store. The
reality that the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act
outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons for the civilian market in
1986, was always hushed up.
Yes, it has been 28 years since a single machine gun was manufactured
for the American public. There are no assault rifles being sold in the
United States. There are only firearms that look like weapons of war,
but which lack their ability to fire multiple shots with a single pull
of the trigger.
These firearms—AR-15s, AKMs and similar rifles—while incredibly
popular with America’s law-abiding gun culture, simply aren’t used in
many crimes. This should be surprising, since they are now among the
most popular firearms sold in the United States in the past decade.
In fact there are now 10 times as many AR-15 type rifles in the hands of
citizens than there are visually similar M4/M16 assault rifles in the
This is another stunning admission by the NY Times, that poverty and
drugs have more to do with violent crime than what kind of weapon is
Media and left heaped shame on themselves as terror attack unfolded in San Bernardino
Today, as a terror attack unfolded in San Bernardino, California, the progressive left in the media and around the political world imploded with the most shameful display of bias and hate I can ever recall seeing all at once. At the end of the day, we know that 14 people died and 17 people were injured at the hands of a man named Syed Farook and his accomplices, described by his own father as a “devout Muslim.” During the hours that the police pursued the suspects, however, details were scant. Instead of facts, a spew of lies and rancor spilled out of every corner of the mainstream media and the liberal political sphere.
Early on, mainstream media outlets attempted to connect the shooting to the Planned Parenthood shooting that happened last week:
And this is from the Huffington Posts’s Sam Stein…
Fox New’s liberal talk show host Alan Colmes…
When it became clear that the shooting hadn’t targeted the Planned Parenthood location, the left moved on to other predictable narratives.
One #BlackLivesMatter activist blamed “whiteness”:
Another #BlackLivesMatter activist couldn’t wait to beat up on the cops who responded to the deadly situation:
The Daily Kos founder blamed Republicans:
Most of the media jumped on the obvious bandwagon: gun control, despite the fact that California already has the nation’s strictest gun laws.
Fox’s Geraldo Rivera packed his bags and moved to crazy town:
Speaking of being full of it, he was so sure that this wasn’t an act of Islamic Jihad…
I want to take a slight detour and compare how politicians on the left and on the right responded to today’s shootings. First, let’s take a look at the left, who couldn’t wait to politicize the shooting for their own agendas (namely gun control).
“Today, yet another American community is reeling from the horror of gun violence. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of San Bernardino. As the families of the victims grieve and the survivors focus on healing, the entire American family mourns.
“Gun violence is a crisis of epidemic proportions in our nation. Congress has a moral responsibility to vote on common sense measures to prevent the daily agony of gun violence in communities across America. Enough is enough.”
Now, let’s look at politicians on the right. Instead of politicizing most of them expressed grief and sorrow for the victims.
The victims weren’t asking for gun control. They were asking for prayer. Outside of the building where the attack happened, the survivors joined together in prayer for the victims and their families.
Inside the building, victims texted their families, “Pray for us.”
As the sharp contrast in responses from the left and right came into focus, the liberal media launched a full-on coordinated attack on prayer itself! Over and over again, liberal “journalists” began mocking prayer.
Daily Kos founder and co-founder of Vox launched a vicious attack on prayer:
Many others followed the seething hatred for prayer, pushing a gun control agenda instead of expressing compassion and pain for the victims.
Vox’s Matthew Yglesias:
More slime from Think Progress:
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy jumped into the prayer shaming fray:
Others were quick to point out his hypocrisy:
Huffington Post wrote prayer shaming articles…
…but forgot about their own prayers:
But the worst of the worst came from the New York Daily News, which is actually printing this cover tomorrow:
Rarely have I been so sick to my stomach by the events of one day. On top of the horrific terrorist attack, the left eagerly disgorged venom on the things they hate the most: God, the American people, and liberty. Today, they did more than just their usual round of politicizing tragedy; they spat in the face of victims and their families.