Yes,they want us dead

NSFW : My Response To Those Who Seek To Exploit The Giffords Tragedy #tcot #p2 #tlot #tpot #nomore | Glory to man in the highest https://gloryofman.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/my-response-to-those-who-seek-to-exploit-the-giffords-tragedy-tcot-p2-tlot-tpot-nomore/ NOT FUNNY!!!! Climate Change Activist Group Blow up Kids People in Commercial Warning Graphic – YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=EUxvjJMpztM&nomobile=1 Michelle Malkin » The post-Newtown witch hunt http://michellemalkin.com/2012/12/19/the-post-newtown-witch-hunt/ ……”

Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children,” Professor Loomisfumed. “Now I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick,” he added. …“F**k the National Rifle Association and its policies to put guns in everyone’s hands,” Professor Loomis tweeted. “You are g*dd*mn right we should politicize this tragedy. F**k the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison,” he spewed. “Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?” If all that wasn’t clear enough, Professor Loomis also re-tweeted the following message from a fellow left-winger: “First f**ker to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death.” [ RRD : Elementary school teachers should be armed ] ….”When the conservative group Campus Reform called attention to the craziness, Professor Loomis whined about a “right-wing intimidation campaign.” ”Joyce Carol Oates also took to Twitter to blame the entire membership of the NRA for one evil-doer’s massacre. “Another NRA-sponsored massacre for Christmas 2012,” Oates wrote. She then accused any politicians who supported the NRA of “felony homicide.” And then she mused hopefully for mass shootings against the NRA: “If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?” Shockingly, actress Marg Helgenberger of the TV show “CSI” cheered her on: “ One can only hope, but sadly I don’t think anything would change.” In Texas, state Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias threw fuel on the fire. Cobarruvias is the Democratic Party precinct chair in Houston,Texas, and holds a seat on the Texas State Democratic Party’s Executive Committee. On his Twitter feed, Cobarruvias labeled the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization” and called for the assassination of NRA leaders and supporters: “Can we now shoot the #NRA & everyone who defends them?

”…..

Madison on Europe ”the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” #tcot #tlot #secondamendment

Madison Federalist 46 .

….”Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”….

Biden wants inoperable “smart guns”,Obama wants a “assault weapons” ban #tcot #secondamendment #tlot

Biden Wants New Technology for Guns http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Biden-technology-guns-owners/2013/01/11/id/471059?s=al&promo_code=11EBD-1 …..” Capping three days of meetings on ways to stem gun violence in light of the Connecticut shootings last month, Vice President Joe Biden said on Friday he was interested in technology that would keep a gun from being fired by anyone other than the person who bought it. And it became clear that President Barack Obama plans to push for a controversial ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to stem gun violence in his State of the Union address next month. “Had the young man not had access to his mother’s arsenal, he may or may not have been able to get a gun,” Biden said on Friday, speaking of Newtown gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, who used weapons purchased by his mother to carry out the attack on an elementary school in the Connecticut town. Lanza killed his mother — Nancy, a gun enthusiast — at their home on Dec. 14 before heading to Sandy Hook Elementary School where he fatally shot 20 children and six adults. “We know that there is no silver bullet, no seat belt,” Biden said before heading into a Friday meeting with representatives of the video game industry, the Associated Press reports. Technology for so-called “smart guns” is being developed, although, so far there has been little demand for it. Various techniques such as fingerprint recognition or the wearing of a magnetic ring would prevent anyone other than a weapon’s registered owner from firing”…. RRD: I am not sure where to begin. There is ,so far as I know, only one locking device of this type that works without interfering with a person’s ability to defend themselves : The Magna-Trigger; & it only works with Smith & Wesson revolvers & one Ruger revolver; the Security model. The person wears a magnetic ring on their trigger finger & the gun (once modified) will not fire without the ring. ( One can get two rings one for each finger,that way you can draw with either hand) . It is recommended by Massad Ayoob,(police officer & firearms expert) for those who use those models of handguns. But it does not “ID” the person,& could be defeated by removing the ring. More to the point it does not work for rifles ( of any kind) or semi-automatic pistols so it would not have stopped the massacre,anymore than “universal background checks” would have ( as the boy murdered his mother & stole her guns). ( Indeed few of the proposals being put forward would have stopped this particular massacre,& none would have prevented terrorists or others from carrying out such a massacre with real ,class three AK-47s from Afghanistan much as they did in Mumbai . ) The mother herself could have stopped the boy from accessing the guns by simply using any number of readily available gun safes,but if she did ,then she presumably trusted that her son would not murder her & gave him the code. As for “smart guns” ,”that cannot be fired by anyone other than the person who bought it or registered it” ,there is a reason that police officers have refused to have them issued to them (at least as of 2000) ,they don’t work (fn1) . Specifically while they seem to be very effective at preventing a criminal from using the stolen weapon ( at least until the criminals find a way to circumvent them,as they did the “unforgeable ID card” fn2 ) ,a unfortunate side effect is that they render the gun unuseable by the owner as well,which would no doubt be fine with Feinstein as long as her security guards were exempt,but might be distressing if you must rely upon the gun to save your life. They rely upon bio-metrics & as anyone can tell you bio-metrics are notoriously iffy,some like Google’s Face recognition can be easily defeated with a photograph,others require multliple attempts to place your finger in exactly the right position . But there is a further problem,even if the technology could be perfected ,what Biden is proposing is that the guns be tied to the user;that means universal registration & universal registration makes confiscation possible. Footnotes : fn1. http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment041900a.html Smart Cops Saying ‘No’ 4/19/2000 By Dave Kopel …”The gun company formerly known as Smith & Wesson (now called “Clinton & Wesson” by Second Amendment advocates) has agreed that in a few years, it will produce only guns which have an internal computer chip, to prevent anyone except the owner from using the gun. Such “smart” guns might be fine for target shooting, but few people who want a gun for protection would want to risk their lives on a bet that the computer chip will always work perfectly in an emergency. The best proof of the dangers of computer guns, in an emergency situation, is that police refuse to buy them. Notably, the agreement between Smith & Wesson and the Clinton administration gives S&W an exemption for sales to police and the military. Likewise, mandatory computer gun proposals which were defeated in 1999 in New Jersey and this March in Maryland, also contained police exemptions. That is because the bills’ sponsors recognized that if the bills forced the police to buy computer guns, the state capitols would be deluged with police officers testifying against the mandate. Were computer guns actually reliable, no group could benefit more than police officers; one-seventh of all police shooting deaths are perpetrated with a gun that was snatched from a police officer. And police guns are uniquely vulnerable to being taken away, since they are normally worn on an exposed belt holster. (As opposed to defensive handguns carried by ordinary citizens, which by law are usually required to be carried concealed.) But when Sandia Labs in New Mexico evaluated every known form of personalized gun technology for possible police adoption, no technology was graded better than a “B” — because of reliability problems. Simply put, the police will not put up with a gun that is 99% reliable. And since civilians, like law enforcement officers, have the legal right to use deadly force to protect themselves or others from serious violent felonies, when no lesser force will suffice, civilians are just as entitled to be able to purchase 100% reliable firearms.”…. fn2. New ID cards are supposed to be ‘unforgeable’ – but it took our expert 12 minutes to clone one, and programme it with false … http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1204641/New-ID-cards-supposed-unforgeable–took-expert-12-minutes-clone-programme-false-data.html

False & Valid quotes on the #secondamendment & victim disarmament #tcot #tlot #teaparty

Whenever gun control laws are proposed defenders of the Second Amendment legitimately seek to marshal quotations from famous individuals in their defense,but according to a blog post on this website ,which purports to be a pro-Second Amendment blog,some of these quotations are false. ( I say “purports” not because I doubt them,but because I have not yet had the opportunity to investigate their claims for myself,hence the disclaimer) . False claims do not strenghten our case,they merely play into the hands of our enemies,so if these quotes are indeed false they should not be used. The Gun Zone RKBA 8 — Gun Quotes http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-8.html GunCite – Gun Control: Bogus gun control quotes http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus.html http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

Obama seeks repeat of Clinton’s failed deal with S&W,except with Wal-Mart

White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings – The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_print.html ….”

One potential strategy would be to win support for specific measures from interest groups that are normally aligned with the NRA, according to one person who works closely with the administration on gun-related issues and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity. For instance, this person suggested, Wal-Mart and other major gun retailers may have an incentive to support closing a loophole that allows people to bypass background checks if they purchase firearms at gun shows or through other types of private sales. That could result in more people buying guns in retail stores.

“…. RRD : For those who are new to this, Clinton tried a similiar scheme with S & W ( Smith & Wesson) ,the “thinking” was that they would pit “good” ,”responsible” gun manufacturers like S & W against “bad” gun manufacturers,then the “bad” ones would be sued,& the “good” ones would cut deals with the Federal government. What could possibly go wrong? What went wrong was that gun owners boycotted S & W into bankruptcy ;literal bankruptcy. No other gun manufacter made a deal with the federal government after that. Let those who think that pragmatism is practical take note of that,(& I include the GOP in that group). Now Obama & co. think that they can do the same thing with Wal-Mart. If the managers of Wal-Mart are ,in fact ,considering this,then what Wal-Mart ‘s managers should ask themselves is this: why would people patronize a business that helps to violate their rights? Incidentally this is yet another example of why gun owners should spread their business around to a number of local shops rather then concentrate their purchases at one major national chain: if your local gun shop goes under because Wal-Mart undercut them in price,you will be at the mercy of Wal-Mart’s corporate decisions. We “hang together” or we will be seperately hanged.

NRO’s Kevin Williamson The Second Amendment was created precisely to protect Military Style weapons #tcot #tlot #teaparty (( tags: Second Amendment,Sandy Hook,Newport))

Regulating the Militia – Kevin D. Williamson – National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336529/regulating-militia-kevin-d-williamson#

……” My friend Brett Joshpe has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he calls “sensible” gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (“As a conservative and a Republican, I can no longer remain silent . . . Some will consider it heresy,” etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are “disingenuous”), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences), fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case. Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing,“Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars — whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person — let alone a Harvard Law graduate — believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity. There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”….

What would be the response if a conservative suggested that the Police should go on strike,to demand laws outlawing rap songs glorifying the killing of ”pigs”? #tcot #secondamendment #tlot

RRD:What would be the response if a conservative suggested that Police Officers should go on strike,to demand laws outlawing rap songs that glorify the killing of ”pigs”?
Answer:the dawn of fascism in America.
I wonder if people like Bloomberg understand that many police support the death penalty for cop killers?Do they understand that many police would support doing away with the Internal Affairs Division (the so-called ”rat squad”).Do they understand that many police are really not very sympathetic to the “victims of society” whom these “bleeding hearts” unleash onto the streets?They use the term “No humans involved”.And besides I thought Liberals thought of the police as racist bloodthirsty killers?The police are props to liberals.
Do Liberals want to open the door to this?

Bloomberg: Police Should Strike Until I Get What I Want « Commentary Magazine

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/07/24/bloomberg-police-should-strike-until-gun-control-legislation/

He’s right/‘Joe the Plumber’ says gun control permitted Holocaust”

Jewish Dems slam candidate ‘Joe the Plumber’ for Holocaust remarks | JTA – Jewish & Israel News

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/06/19/3098531/jewish-democrats-slam-joe-the-plumber-for-holocaust-remarks

RRD:Or at least partially right.I wish to be very clear about what I am,and what I am not saying.

Gun Control does make it easier for dictatorships to carry out their atrocities.

No,there is no guarantee that they wouldn’t suceed without gun control,but their victims would at least have the chance to fight back.

Saying that does not mean that “those who support gun control want a Holocaust” a claim which is absurd.
Nor does it mean that they don’t care about whether a Holocaust were to come about.

But the 20th Century has given us Hitler,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot and countless other dictatorships.The Jewish fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising were not plagued with a surfeit of weapons.Neither were the victims of Tiananmen Square.(Whose murderers called for America to protect the “human rights of its citizens” by “protecting them” from firearm ownership as the dead and enslaved Chinese are.)
People from Iran,to Syria,to Libya are at the mercy of each of these dictatorships.
The UN ”Safe Haven” of Srebrenica,wasn’t.The innocent were handed over to be slaughtered.

Many liberals who advocate for civil liberties point out(often rightly) that this law or that provision could have long term consequences, possibly even leading
to a dictatorship.
Yet when one suggests that gun control made the work of these dictatorships easier,many of these same people turn around and say that it is slanderous to suggest that the U.S. could ever become a dictatorship.

Have they heard of Rosewood?The interment of Japanese Americans?

Rosewood History

http://www.rosewoodflorida.com/history.html

BBC News – Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/675945.stm

Rosewood History

http://www.rosewoodflorida.com/history.html

Butchers of Tiananmen Square ”concerned” about our rights being violated by 2ndamendment #tcot #tlot #teaparty

RRD:Forgive the profanity;but you can’t make this shit up.

PJ Media » Is Gun Control a Human Right?

http://pjmedia.com/blog/is-gun-control-a-human-right/?singlepage=true

…”Take China, for instance. There, where the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is vanished by a one-child policy that forces women to abort every child after their first one, accusations are now being levied that the U.S. violates the human rights of its citizens by allowing private gun ownership. That’s right — China contends that private gun ownership is a violation of human rights.”

Why ? Because honoring the 2nd Amendment has resulted in “rampant gun ownership.” (It’s a circular argument, I know, but coming from Chinese officials, who are used to being the only ones with guns, and therefore accustomed to telling their own people when to jump and how high, it probably makes sense.)…

RRD:So the mass murdering gang that rules the Peoples Republic of China is “concerned” about the fact that our citizens would at least have the ability to shoot back should the government attempt to impose a dictatorship–and I use the term dictatorship literally in this case,as in the execution of political dissidents etc.

This is the regime that gave us the “excesses” of the “Cultural Revolution(which of course does not deter some liberals from wearing pictures of the mass murderer Mao)

This regime committed atrocities against the Tibetans,slaughtered their own citizens in Tiananmen,performs forcible abortions,& uses political dissidents as slaves,and we are to stand by while these psychopaths spit in our face,and on the graves of their victims?!

As to the columnist’s Hawkins use of Charlton Heston’s phrase
”From my cold, dead hands.”,I disagree.

If anything should be taken from anyone’s dead hands it should be the reins of power,taken by the people of China, from the “dead hands” of their oppressors.

Tiananmen Square Massacre – YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inWKFKv9UA