Major Newspapers Confirm No ‘Gun Laws’ will Ever be Enough for Them

Citizen disarmament proposals offered for serious consideration by major newspapers can only end in one of two ways if the issue is forced. (Surrender of Cornwallis by John Trumbell, U.S. Capitol Rotunda)

“Would strict enforcement of existing gun laws have stopped the Texas church massacre?” The Los Angeles Times editorial board asks rhetorically. “Probably not.”

“Of course not” would be more like it, no matter how many ostensibly on the side of the Second Amendment claim otherwise.  As long as those who do evil walk among us, they will find a way. Remember that mass killings that racked up the highest death tolls, 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Happyland Dance Club fire, were all committed without guns.

The Times goes through the “existing laws” the Texas church massacre maniac slipped through to come to its central thesis, one the paper has been rabidly demanding for decades:

“But even then, assault weapons like the one Kelley used will remain for sale in this country, and that’s the fundamental problem. Civilians have no legitimate reason to own military-style firearms. Enthusiasts might get a kick out of shooting them, but that’s hardly reason to endanger the rest of us. These rapid-fire weapons, with their high-capacity magazines and quick reloads, are designed for one purpose: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. They do not belong in private hands.”

That, of course, is a lie, demonstrable if by no other means than looking at the sheer number of such firearms peaceably owned and used for all kinds of other purposes, and then comparing that to the small percentage used in crimes of violence – often by people who obtained them by criminal means.

The Times is not done intentionally confusing a readership conditioned to believe the editors know what they’re talking about:

“Gun advocates argue that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own such weapons, but it does not. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision (which we think was wrongly decided) recognized a right to own a firearm in the home for self-protection, but echoed previous court decisions that the ownership right is not absolute, is subject to regulation, and can be limited to firearms currently “in common use.” By some estimates, assaults weapons account for only about 3% of the estimated 300 million guns in our collective arsenal. That’s not ‘in common use.’”

No “gun advocate” worth his salt thinks the Second Amendment “gives” them anything. Since The Times cited Heller. It’s fair to assume leaving out a key citation was a deliberately fraudulent lie of omission:

“As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … “

Equally deceptive is their characterization of what “in common use at the time” means (and by their definition, all new developments in firearms technology would be forever withheld from We the People). That qualifier relied on U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 that found a weapon must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

But it’s interesting The Times admits they even disagree with the Heller opinion that you can have a gun in your home. And it doesn’t matter what kind, because they’ve long supported handgun bans as well. And forget them recognizing any right to carry either openly or concealed.

They want it all.

As does The Boston Globe, which wants Americans to “Hand over your weapons.”

 “The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach … Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.”

If “that idea” ever “seems” normal, the core and vital reasons behind Oath Keepers will come into play. It will become a very dangerous time for the citizen targets of those who follow such orders as well as for those refusing to obey them. That’s why it’s so crucial to disseminate the truth now, and by that I mean for you and me to do it, and regularly.

Then there’s “the newspaper of record,” The New York Times, a generational apologist for communist totalitarianism from the days of Walter Duranty that flat-out declares:

“Repeal the Second Amendment.”

The masks are off and they can’t put them back on. This is what’s at the bottom of Nancy Pelosi’s “slippery slope.” And this is the answer to throw back in the faces of collectivists who use Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule and sneering terms like “paranoids” as they flat-out lie that “No one wants to take your guns.”

Of course they do.  And if they can, the real business of control will become apparent.

In the mean time, they’ll continue lie under cover of the “common sense gun safety law” deception, and chip away at one piece and then the next until they can try to bring the whole thing down. And they’ll continue smearing anyone who opposes them as an extremist, as a hater, as a terrorist and as a treasonous domestic enemy to be destroyed.

They’re intent on forcing the issue. The surrender they demand of us is unconditional.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

 

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. Knarley Bob 11 November, 2017, 10:16

    If you stop and think, EVERY gun law on the books, IS unconstitutional. But gun owners have agreed to abide by them any way. The gun grabbers want a “Reasonable conversation” on guns. Fine. But their idea is they tell us what they want, and we agree.They tell us what we cannot have any more, and we agree.
    They say we are un-agreeable when we say NO. I think that we as gun owners have agreed to enough. Giving up our rights to appease anyone is wrong, and giving up our rights to someone who will not stop until they are ALL gone is is nuts! It has never been a two way conversation, it never will. So why continue with it? No more capitulations, PERIOD!.

    Reply this comment
    • Jzen 11 November, 2017, 11:22

      You’re absolutely right. Gun owners want to appear”reasonable,” so they (we) agree (wrongly) that we shouldn’t have automatic weapons, that “criminals” shouldn’t own guns, etc.
      These stances are wrong headed and dangerous– the 2A protects the God-given right to self defense so strongly exactly because we may one day need military weapons, and anyone can be made a criminal by the stroke of a pen in a liberal legislature. In fact, you yourself have likely unknowingly committed 10 federal crimes in the last year.
      Not to mention, even those who have intentionally committed actual crimes, and who have paid their debt to society, are citizens of this nation responsible for Its defense, and have families and homes that need protecting.

      Reply this comment
      • DMarkWard 13 November, 2017, 10:31

        Thank you for bringing up the issue about ex-cons being denied ownership and, i believe use of someone else’s firearm. And denying the privilege of voting. How long does one have to keep paying their “debt to society”? Adn if they f*** up again, well, back in the box.

        Reply this comment
    • greg k 11 November, 2017, 17:26

      “The Appeaser is the One who feeds the Alligator, expecting to be eaten last.”
      Winston Churchill

      Reply this comment
      • Bruce 17 November, 2017, 19:14

        The Appeaser is the one who would feed us to the alligator and think that it will not get hungry again.

        Reply this comment
    • Dave 13 November, 2017, 14:13

      You are absolutely correct with your assessment of this situation!!!! The media is nothing but LIARS!!!!!!!!

      Reply this comment
  2. Alkemys 11 November, 2017, 11:48

    And their “compromise” is laid bare. The want everything and will give NOTHING in return. We certainly won’t get the promised safety and reduction in crime. But all of us law-abiding gun owners have always known that. We obey laws that we know are ridiculous. Criminals don’t. when will they learn…or maybe they’re just trying to create a more hospitable environment for their fellow criminals…

    Reply this comment
  3. Elmo 11 November, 2017, 12:27

    News flash to the mathematically challenged L.A. Times editorial board – 3% of 300 million is 9 million. That seems pretty ‘common use’ to me.
    By their logic, single shot rifles should be banned too, since they’re not of ‘common use’ either.

    But then we all know the people at the L.A. Times are not only mathematically challenged, they’re logically challenged too.

    Reply this comment
    • greg k 11 November, 2017, 17:24

      That “Common Use” decision confuses me. How can something come into “Common Use” if it’s restricted nondeterminately?

      Reply this comment
      • greg k 11 November, 2017, 21:20

        Are my eyes getting bad or what? Pretty sure I wrote predeterminately….spell check?

        Reply this comment
    • Pat 12 November, 2017, 06:43

      The 300 million is using the extremely low BATFE numbers. Actual numbers are over 600 million, perhaps as high as 750 million.

      We don’t know how many 80% receivers have been sold, either.

      Reply this comment
      • DMarkWard 13 November, 2017, 10:38

        Yep. Since the beginning of the human race there have been a lot of rocks lying around. As Solomon said: nothing new under the Sun. A bullet is nothing more than a little metal from a rock that can travel at a tremendous speed more accurately. Natural that we would over time go from a hand held rock to catapults, trebouchets, bows and arrows, and gunpowder.

        Reply this comment
      • Charlie BROWN 13 November, 2017, 15:20

        @ Pat, I think the FBI wrote 1% of all gun deaths involved long guns. Maybe I am wrong , but the mask is off, has been for most of us for a long time.And now the sleeping ones need to know they don’t intend to stop with semi auto’s. They want them all, no muss no fuss. How can you have a proper world dictatorship with out complete gun confiscation of the people.

        Reply this comment
    • Lord-Pi-314 13 November, 2017, 10:02

      Perhaps the LA Times needs to be boycotted out of business. Refuse to buy anything from their advertisers, and send letters to them explaining why you are boycotting their products. Just keep in mind that the “Network of Global Corporate Control” owns all of them.

      Reply this comment
  4. greg k 11 November, 2017, 17:29

    “Civilians have no legitimate reason to own military-style firearms.”

    Really? Why Not? Isn’t that what the 2nd is for, and why it “Shall not be Infringed?”

    Reply this comment
    • xtron 12 November, 2017, 08:50

      time to throw a little truth back in their face….
      the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting
      the second amendment is about ensuring the general population has the means to overthrow the government should it ever over step it’s legal authority and/or become a dictatorship.
      let the gun grabbers chew on that a while

      Reply this comment
      • Warren Dallas 13 November, 2017, 11:00

        The problem is they care not for the truth, and never have. This fact is apparent when they respond with ridicule instead of discussing the issue.

        Reply this comment
  5. Cal 11 November, 2017, 18:38

    “Civilians have no legitimate reason to own military-style firearms.”

    Let’s see what the framers, court cases, etc had to say about that.

    Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

    THIS -> Tench Coxe, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. THEIR SWORDS, AND EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, ARE THE BIRTH-RIGHT OF AN AMERICAN… THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.”

    (THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS) Is WHY those who serve within our governments are forbidden to use any but the Militia of the several states, trained as the Congress requires the military to be trained, with NO STANDING (permanent) military, no law enforcement agencies except the sheriffs who are to use the Militia as deputies, is REQUIRED in writing within the US Constitution.

    Why? Because law enforcement is a domestic military who today is USED against the American people. They do NOT keep their Oaths because by not doing so they “can do their job easier”. What they really mean is that they cannot do the job LAWFULLY, constitutionally, as was done in the past. They regularly break their Oaths, committing felonies, working against the US Constitution and the American people. The framers knew that if the people allowed this to happen, standing armies, domestic armies, that they would keep us in eternal and UNLAWFUL wars of agression, and break an enter into our homes with NO LAWFUL WARRANTS or LAWFUL CAUSES. That they would use their weapons AGAINST the American people as has been done throughout history, with some of the most recongized today being Stalin’s/Lenin’s Russia, Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, etc, etc.

    The Oath was the way to try and stop this from happening. Keeping it was a PERSONAL LAWFUL requirement of all who serve within government, but critical to the survival of our legitimate government and nation that those who are enforcement – military, LE, First Responders, etc – for our nation to succeed. That is why the constitutional requirement of no permanent military, because those of rank would want it to continue for their riches, power, etc so would do as is happening today, keep us in endless UNLAWFUL, UNDECLARED BY CONGRESS, wars of aggression agaiinst other nations and if the people were dumbed down those soldiers that are sent would NOT say “NO, THIS IS AN UNLAWFUL ORDER!” Because the LE’s would also embrace the ease of being able to use force against the American people, though it be against the supreme LAW of our land, against the supreme contract to which they are Oathbound, etc.

    The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. They knew that a standing army is a tool of government and can be used by that government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people.

    James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”

    Tench Coxe, ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’, in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, on the Second Amendment where he asserts that it’s the people with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”.

    Thomas Cooley: “The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon… If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for that purpose”.

    Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846): ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.”

    Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859): “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.”

    Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878): “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm … is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

    “Gun advocates argue that the 2nd Amendment gives them the right to own such weapons, but it does not”

    No, it does not, it is the NATURAL RIGHT of self defense that gives the people the right, and it existed long before there were governments.

    An editorial on Gage’s proclamation stressed that an armed populace must keep government
    in check: “The opposing an arbitrary measure, or resisting an illegal force, is no more
    rebellion than to refuse obedience to a highway-man who demands your purse, or to fight a
    wild beast, that came to devour you. It is morally lawful, in all limited governments, to resist
    that force that wants political power, from the petty constable to the king…. They are rebels
    who arm against the constitution, not they who defend it by arms.” “A Freeman,” PA. EVENING POST, June 27, 1775, at 2. [Vol. 7:2]

    James Wilson, who had urged Coxe to write “An American Citizen IV,” contended that the
    Constitution already allowed for the ultimate force in the people: “”In its principles, it is surely
    democratical; for, however wide and various the firearms of power may appear, they may all be traced to one source, the people.”

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 28: “ there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms”
    “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government… if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers… The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair… The people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate… If their rights are invaded… How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized! (being armed)“

    Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”

    You think that a draft if lawful? It is NOT.

    Daniel Webster: “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? … A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men”.

    ““The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street – and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach … Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.””

    Colin Greenwood, in the study “Firearms Control”, 1972: “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.”

    Stephen P. Halbrook, “That Every Man Be Armed”, 1984: “In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the “collective” right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis.”

    Consider this – > Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992: “Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don’t have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.”

    Reply this comment
    • Nick 13 November, 2017, 09:15

      All the words of the Founders, students of Arms, and Court decisions are pointless when those of us who recognize the importance of our duty “to execute the Laws of the Union” are ignored much the same as the Times ignores fundamental laws.
      I’m guessing that there are enough of us out there to follow the game plan used by our fore-bearer’s to reconcile the lawlessness of government, and its cohorts in the media.
      The question is whether or not groups like the NRA, GOA, and even Oath Keepers actually want to win the battle rather than kicking it down the road?
      I have taken the time to write the governor, and apply for a position in the militia as stated in this states statutes. I’ve written about it, and spoken about it. I’ve even been kicked off a couple of so-called pro-2nd forums for my stance on revitalizing not only militia, but also the “Committee of Safety”.

      Reply this comment
  6. Woody W Woodward 11 November, 2017, 19:39

    ” … 3% of the estimated 300 million guns in our collective arsenal. That’s not ‘in common use.” I’m wondering if the LAughable Times could boast a larger readership if the matter of violations of 1st Amendment rights ever comes up, and its continued existence would depend upon the number of its readers as compared to the total number of Americans.
    [W3]

    Reply this comment
  7. Anon 11 November, 2017, 21:23

    Though some may disagree…
    CACHE! Not just the weapons but ALL that is needed.
    I have sacrificial pieces for the Traitors, just incase.
    I will tell them what they want to hear, give them what they want to see.
    And Fight them to the end

    Reply this comment
    • Quatermain 13 November, 2017, 10:27

      Sacrificing or burying some of your arms could be suicide. If they come for your guns there is a better than even chance they are also coming for you. Better to die when they come through the door than in a windswept FEMA camp.

      Reply this comment
      • Bruce 17 November, 2017, 19:13

        You are 100% correct. Take your guns, THEN take you in handcuffs. It is about eliminating the resistance. Weapons without courage are useless.

        Reply this comment
      • Bruce 17 November, 2017, 19:16

        It is not a question of willing to die on one;’s feet or live on one’s knees but a question of “being willing to die on your feet so you do not die on your knees”.

        Reply this comment
  8. anarchyst 13 November, 2017, 07:48

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…

    Reply this comment
  9. Hypo 13 November, 2017, 07:51

    All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.

    Mao.

    That cuts to the point. It is all about power.

    Reply this comment
  10. Edwin Vieira 13 November, 2017, 08:23

    If you want to understand the interrelationship between the United States v. Miller and D.C. v. Heller opinions, see my amicus brief in Kolbe v. Hogan, on the SCOTUSBLOG.

    Reply this comment
  11. Daniel James 13 November, 2017, 08:49

    Murder is illegal, hows that working out?

    Reply this comment
  12. Colonel 13 November, 2017, 08:53

    The Texas Massacre of last weekend has proven once again that the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun. Law enforcement, even with the best of intentions, is usually, minutes away and arrives in time to “clean up” the carnage – not STOP it.

    1 John 3:16 tells us that Jesus showed us what love is by giving up his life to save us. We must be willing to do the same to save our brothers and sisters in their moment of need. We swore an oath to do just that. If you see a brother or sister in need is it God’s will that we say to them “go in peace, I will pray for you” or is it God’s will that we take action to satisfy their need? That need may be for us just what the armed citizen in Sutherland Springs, TX responded to. Think again about the parable of the Good Samaritan.

    Reply this comment
  13. waypasthadenough 13 November, 2017, 09:27

    The crime issue is a red herring. Always has been always will be. The SCOTUS is NOT the final arbiter of our rights! WE ARE!

    The most important things to do: http://www.freekentucky.com/the-most-important-things-to-do/

    Reply this comment
  14. Joe 13 November, 2017, 10:34

    When I was growing up, I slowly realized that my mother was a hard-core Communist. At one point, I asked her “Do you believe that the ends justify the means?” and she replied “Yes, absolutely. There is no “wrong” when you are doing the “right thing”.

    THIS is the mentality of the Left. Want something done and you have to stick knives in baby’s faces? You do it. Have to lie, cheat, steal, murder, entrap, extort, beat, to “support the cause”? – then you do it. Leftists have no morals, no ethics, no limits – NOTHING is out of bounds for them. This is a critical thing to get your head around – the ends always justify the means – you will never be able to get them to agree to something, no matter how logical, if it goes against what they want to have happen. Never.

    Gun Control has never been about GUNS – it’s all about CONTROL.

    Reply this comment
    • greg k 13 November, 2017, 17:30

      Interesting. My mom as well. She thinks you should never speak out against authority, and follow the group with no regard to your own interests. As horrible as this is, I don’t talk with her anymore. I tried many times trying to make some sort of compromise, but it is futile. She started scapegoating me at 4 (maybe younger), for her own dirty deeds. What I have learned is that; “Progressives learn to lie to themselves first. Everything after that is second nature.”

      Reply this comment
  15. Michael 13 November, 2017, 11:12

    Why has Oath Keepers been silent in reguard to the Las Vegas shooting when it happened right in their own back yard?

    Reply this comment
  16. Jane Doe 13 November, 2017, 15:21

    Since there is no war going on in this country, then our military needs to lay down their arms whenever accessing people’s properties or homes. Typically, these people are armed to the teeth. They should not be allowed to carry the same arms we are not allowed, or not supposed to own. Good luck with try and removing guns from American Patriots. It will never happen.

    Reply this comment
  17. sabwafare 14 November, 2017, 20:07

    Don’t worry. If they want my guns, they will have to come and take them….LOL

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*