This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists

  • A Brief Review of 2nd and 10th Amendments

    The Bill of Rights

    That small firecracker storm stirred up by yesterday’s posting of an article about a newly-minted Congress critter from California showed that this incipient Congress critter is ignorant of both Federal and state laws about everything.

    Here’s my attempt to clear up that ignorance as simply as possible.

    First of all, the US Constitution has Amendments that specify such things as what authority is delegated to the Federal government, and what is delegated to the states and to the people of the United States.

    The specific Amendment regarding this comes out of the Articles of Confederation, which was the original document meant to provide for a national and expanding, federal government. When the Articles of Confederation were dumped, the resulting Amendment designating states’ rights was created during the drafting of the US Constitution.

    The 10th Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to create a class of powers, known as reserved powers, exclusive to state governments. The amendment specifically reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Now, that’s quite clear language, in my view. It is plain English, unlike some of the bills passed by either or both Houses of Congress, bills in which gobbledygook is meant to cover the cracks in the system that come from quarrelsome parties in Congress. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/amgovernment/chapter/state-power-and-delegation/

    I will repeat it. Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The U.S. Constitution is silent on the dispersion of power between states and localities within each state. This means that because local jurisdictions are not mentioned specifically, then local power lies within the purvey of the states themselves.

    The other Amendment which is brought up here so frequently is the Second Amendment, which is as follows:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    That’s pretty clear, too. At the federal level, your right to own guns is inviolate. The most recent example of a localized attempt to overstep the US Constitution as well as state law occurred  when the Mayor of Deerfield, IL, not only passed an ordinance banning guns in Deerfield, but also included a search-and-seizure procedure with no notice to homeowners, which was tested in court, and was found to not only violate Illinois state laws by not providing due process or warrants, but also violated the US Constitution. She lost, and lost badly.

    That was the first test of this kind of thing. I believe more will follow. Prepare yourselves mentally for that, and if necessary, get to be friendss with an attorney who knows both state and US Constitutional laws.

    It was this bout of illegal activity by one person that prompted the County of Effingham downstate to offer itself as a sanctuary county for gun owners. That ‘sanctuary county’ program continues in Illinois,  as I indicated a few weeks ago, with many counties following suit and more with the sanctuary proposal on their legislative books.

    Try to speculate on what will happen if state legislatures decide to go full potato about it, and declare themselves sanctuary states for gun owners.? We’d probably have another test of both state and federal laws. That would be my guess. That’s how you do things in this country. It is “We, the People”, not ‘The Government’.

    The newly-elected and very arrogant individual Swallwell from California voiced threats toward anyone who fails to obey a federal gun ban, including dropping a nuke on you. I’d like to see him try that.

    He is not only ignorant of the US Constitution, he is also colossally ignorant of laws in general.

    The US Constitution’s 2nd Amendment is a federal law, whether he likes it or not. It is backed up by the 10th Amendment. His authority is a lot more limited than he can possibly imagine by the language of the 10th Amendment:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Bear that last phrase in mind: “or to the people”, and review the Deerfield debacle. This Amendment has withstood the test of time and the court system.

    The 10th  Amencment is quite clear. It is within the rights of each and every state government to create legislation regarding owning guns. It is, in fact, reserved to the states to create such laws as they see fit, which has resulted in the State of Illinois passing rather stringent but valid FOID and CCW laws, both of which meet legal requirements and state laws, and constitutional terms at the federal level. This is what tripped up the Mayor of Deerfield.

    I want to remind everybody reading this that Prohibition, a Constitutional amendment passed by Congress and ratified by the states, did not work and was repealed within a few years. Among other things, it provided room for the rise of organized crime, which started with Al Capone.

    It is extremely necessary on the part of all of us to be aware of these vultures and give them as much room as possible to expose themselves for what they really are.

    Without awareness of them and their agenda, we lose the very things we value most.

  • Democrat Eric Swalwell: If Gun Owners Defy ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban, ‘The Government Has Nukes’

    come and take them
    AWR Hawkins

    Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) defended a potential “assault weapons” buyback Friday afternoon, saying that if gun owners defy a legislative ban, “the government has nukes.”

    The exchange began with conservative Twitter commentator Joe Biggs responding to a story on Swalwell’s Thursday op-ed in USA Today, titled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters.”

    So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

    Make no mistake, Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state.

    These people are dangerously obsessed with power.

    Swalwell responded by noting the government’s nuclear arsenal, writing: “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

    Biggs responded by asking, “So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow.”

    Swalwell countered:

    Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law.

    On May 21, 2018, Breitbart News reported that Swalwell pushed an “assault weapons” ban that would be based on buybacks with criminal charges for those who did not comply. A similar buyback was used by the Australia government with mixed results.

    My first impression of laughing boy here was watching him destroyed on Tucker Carlson’s show. He’s a deep-dipped Progtard with delusions of higher office. “…I’m sure you’ll follow law.” Ask the estimated hundreds of thousands of instant criminals in New York State and elsewhere who have ignored the unconstitutional and arbitrary Assault Weapons bans.

    Imagine the mutiny that would occur if a Federal Assault Weapons Ban in the image of Australia’s was instituted and enforced. Or if a nuclear launch was ordered on American soil.

    The article in its entirity may be viewed at Breitbart News

    Tip o’ the old chapeau to The Other Whitey for the reminder. Pic change goodness goes to 5th/77th FA, for pointing out the obvious. Thanks to you both.

    salwellRep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)

  • Democrats Plan to Pursue Most Aggressive Gun-Control Legislation in Decades

    gun grabbers Georgia Democrat Lucy McBath, the highest-profile gun-control advocate on the ballot Tuesday, defeated GOP Rep. Karen Handel. Photo: DUSTIN CHAMBERS for The Wall Street Journal
    Focus spurred by an incoming class of lawmakers with ‘F’ NRA ratings who campaigned on the issue.
    By Reid J. Epstein

    Democrats say they will pass the most aggressive gun-control legislation in decades when they become the House majority in January, plans they renewed this week in the aftermath of a mass killing in a California bar.

    Their efforts will be spurred by an incoming class of pro-gun-control lawmakers who scored big in Tuesday’s midterm elections, although any measure would likely meet stiff resistance in the GOP-controlled Senate.

    Democrats ousted at least 15 House Republicans with “A” National Rifle Association ratings, while the candidates elected to replace them all scored an “F” NRA rating.

    “This new majority is not going to be afraid of our shadow,” said Mike Thompson, a California Democrat who is chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force. “We know that we’ve been elected to do a job, and we’re going to do it.”

    Mr. Thompson, who represents a district in the Napa Valley north of San Francisco, said he plans to introduce legislation mandating universal background checks in the opening weeks of the new Congress.

    The gun-control movement’s evolution was evident this week following news that a dozen people had been killed Thursday at a country music bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif.

    Here come the ghouls, dancing in the blood of innocents. But this should surprise no one, and they’re a couple things the gun grabbers will have to overcome- the Senate and the President.

    This is all show and bluster.

    Read the entire article at The Wall Street Journal but take your blood pressure meds first.

  • Anne Arundel Police serving order to remove guns shoot, kill armed man- Updated

    Police

    A relative of the man fatally shot by Anne Arundel County Police Monday morning says the incident stems from a family dispute Sunday night.

    The woman who asked we not identify her says, the family was fighting over the care of an elderly grandparent. It’s during the argument, the relative says, Gary Willis made a comment that prompted another member of their family to seek an emergency risk protective order.

    Maryland’s “Red Flag Law” took effect at the beginning of October. Under the new law, someone close to an individual can petition a court commissioner to issue a protective order that allows police to take a person’s firearms should they show signs of being a risk to themselves or someone else.

    Within its first month. one-hundred-fourteen ERPOs had been petitioned in Maryland. Mark Pennack the President of the organization Maryland Shall Issue says, “This has disaster written all over it.” One neighbor said, “ I didn’t even know about the new law…He (Willis) probably didn’t.”

    And just like that, a man is dead because of a comment and the “Red Flag” law in Maryland. No investigation, no probable cause, just a phone call from an irate relative. The Police showed up at the residence at around 0500, demanding Mr. Willis’ firearm. At first he complied, then he retrieved it and a struggle ensued. His firearm discharged, striking nothing, and then he was shot and died at the scene. This is truly frightening. Thank Governor Hogan for enacting this horrific law- it needs to be challenged immediately before more citizens are shot dead in their own living room.

    View the article at Fox Balitmore

    Update.

    As promised, a link to the more in-depth article. That doesn’t make it any less infuriating.

    Baltimore Sun Link

  • Meantime, for you gun nutz:

    I am not hoplophobic!

    This one is for you gun nutz, happening in New York (probably NYC) now.

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/11/daniel-zimmerman/coming-to-an-anti-gun-state-near-you-ny-pols-want-social-media-checks-before-buying-guns/

    From the article:

    “Two New York lawmakers are working to draft a bill that would propose a social media check before a gun purchase.

    But it’s OK. They only want to look at the last three years of your online activity.

    Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Sen. Kevin Palmer’s proposal would allow authorities to review three years of social media history and one year of internet search history of any person seeking to purchase a firearm.” – Article

    And don’t think it will stop there, either, because it won’t. Note the use of the word ‘hoplophobic’. You could have a T-shirt printed with “I am not hoplophobic” printed on it, just to confuse people. When asked about it, you could either answer it truthfully (not afraid of guns) or just say you had the vaccination for it.

    Aside from the ‘invasion of privacy’ part, it’s also a violation of the 1st Amendment’s ‘right of free speech’ phrase to be that invasive. If you act like an ass on social media, well, you are definitely an ass but that does not mean you should be denied your rights over it.  Nor does posting stupid remarks, such as ‘he ought to be shot/boiled in oil/made to do something idiotic’ make you a threat to society. There is a wide difference between venting your anger about some injustice, and making real threats of violence.

    While I’d like to see some dimwitted not-funny comedienne who likes to frighten small children with severed heads spend some time in the cooler, it’s better to ostracize someone like that than it is to deny basic rights that we all take for granted to someone, even if that someone is a colossal social moron.

    “Don’t think this will stop in New York, even if these two can’t manage to get their little brainstorm signed into law. How long will it take Daddy Bloombucks and his hoplophobic harridans to get signature collectors out on the streets and fund the initiative campaigns to get something like this on the 2020 ballot in California or Washington State?” – Article

    Read the rest of the article. It is both a hoot and a ‘yank your chain to wake you’ effort. You cannot afford to take anything for granted any more. This news shows just how desperate this bunch of control freaks are to deprive you of your basic Constitutional rights.

    I’ll stick to my guns (snort!) on this and say that while my state may have the most mingy, cringingly stringent laws on gun ownership, the reason the Deerfield, IL, mayor was defeated in her attempt to illegally seize personally-owned guns from residents was that they had universally obeyed state laws, were well within their rights in owning them, and she violated both state law and the federal law – 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution – when she did that without warning.

    That whole business about sanctuary counties for gun owners doesn’t look quite so ridiculous now, does it? How about sanctuary states?

    If you missed my advice yesterday, I said “GO VOTE!!” Then you can go to your local gun shop and stock up on ammo and hold the Lapua briefly in your arms.

  • A Follow-up on the Gun Ban That Failed

    This is a follow-up to the news from last summer about the Mayor of Deerfield, IL, a bedroom community near a shopping center, declaring a gun ban and trying to seize guns that belonged to the residents, even thought those people were following the very strict, strictured rules of the Illinois FOID and CCW. A suit was filed against her ban and it was overturned, partly because the mayor’s methods were unreasonable and also because they violated the Illinois state laws on gun ownership.

    https://www.effinghamdailynews.com/news/local_news/gun-sanctuaries-spreading-across-illinois/article_50eb5881-4f97-56d0-b3aa-feb45c264c14.html

    Since then, the resolution declaring Effingham County a sanctuary for guns has started a statewide trend of opposition to legislation directed toward firearms. But it remains to be seen if it has any real effect in Springfield.

    So far, 30 Illinois counties have passed “firearms sanctuary” resolutions that oppose bills before the state legislature and declare that the counties will not enforce laws that infringe on the Second Amendment. The resolutions have not been tested by any new laws, but it appears the resolutions would not affect how law enforcement operates. – Article

    The article includes a color-coded map of the counties in Illinois which have voted themselves into gun owner sanctuary status as of July 2018. This is partly because they are good game hunting counties, which represents a certain amount of income.

    The map also shows by color coding which counties are in the process of voting to declare themselves gun sanctuaries, as well as those which are planning to move in that direction. I cannot imagine moving back to Macon County, but the southern and western parts of the state are very attractive. And the further you get from Chicago, the more you see that the state of Illinois is a farm state, not an industrial platform.

    There’s an NRA video about it here:

    https://www.nratv.com/videos/cam-and-company-2018-sanctuary-counties-for-gun-owners-are-a-growing-trend

    The article is dated July 2018. It’s the most recent information I could find on this. It’s the vox populi* part so disliked by politicians who want to stick their noses into everything – they don’t want your opinion, nor do they care what you want, unless it’s voting time.

    *Vox populi = voice of the people

  • Oh, Gun Laws Were Tougher, Were They?

    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/10/kat-ainsworth/time-magazine-gun-laws-were-much-tougher-150-years-ago/?bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiAiMTIzZDMzYWQtY2QzNi00ZjQyLThjODMtNTg4MDAxYTM1YTU4In0%3D

    Last week marks 50 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968 into law on Oct. 22 of that year. It was the first major gun control measure in the United States in 30 years, but its passage earned this dismissive take in the pages of TIME: “better than nothing.”

    http://time.com/5429002/gun-control-act-history-1968/  “Forget the democratic processes, the judicial system and the talent for organization that have long been the distinctive marks of the U.S. Forget, too, the affluence (vast, if still not general enough) and the fundamental respect for law by most Americans. Remember, instead, the Gun,” the magazine had noted earlier that year, in a cover story about the role of guns in the United States, which was prompted by the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. “All too widely, the country is regarded as a blood-drenched, continent-wide shooting range where toddlers blast off with real rifles, housewives pack pearl-handled revolvers, and political assassins stalk their victims at will. The image, of course, is wildly overblown, but America’s own mythmakers are largely to blame. In U.S. folklore, nothing has been more romanticized than guns and the larger-than-life men who wielded them. From the nation’s beginnings, in fact and fiction, the gun has been provider and protector.”

    TIME Magazine says, in the final paragraphs of its own article, that there were hundreds of gun laws in the 1800s, and going back to the 1600s in early colonial America.

    What do people get wrong about the history of gun control? Are there any myths you find yourself debunking?

    “One of the great myths is the idea that gun-control laws are an artifact of the modern era, the 20th century. Gun laws are as old as America, literally to the very early colonial beginnings of the nation. From the beginning of the late 1600s to the end of the 1800s, gun laws were everywhere, thousands of gun laws of every imaginable variety. You find virtually every state in the union enacting laws that bar people from carrying concealed weapons. That’s something people don’t realize.”

    “When we were all colonies, there were laws in the 1600s making it illegal to discharge a weapon near a road, near buildings, populated areas or on Sundays, and that barred discharge of a gun during social occasions. In New Jersey, there was a law that said you weren’t allowed to discharge a weapon when you were drunk and the two exceptions were at weddings and funerals. In the old ‘Wild West,’ they took people’s guns away when they were in a populated area, only to be retrieved when they left. That exemplifies how laws were much tougher 150 years ago than in the last 30 years.” – TIME Magazine

    It appears that we’re supposed to just take their word for it, without any references or backups of any kind. I know that in general, after the Civil War, the South was essentially disarmed.

    However, in The New Republic’s article from 2013,  https://newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racist , the NRA’s origins stem from attempts to bar newly-emancipated blacks from owning guns.

    “As Keene notes, after the Civil War there was a rash of gun control laws aimed at disarming blacks. Southern blacks who had long been denied access to firearms were finally able to obtain them during the Civil War. Some served in colored units of the Union Army, which allowed soldiers regardless of skin color to take their guns home with them as partial payment of back-due wages. Other blacks purchased guns in the marketplace, which was flooded with the hundreds of thousands of guns produced for the war. Many predicted, accurately, that they might need those weapons to defend themselves against racist whites unhappy with the Confederacy’s defeat.” – Article

    We have to remember, also, that the reason we have a Constitutional law – a federal law – that gives us the right to bear arms is specifically because the British government not only taxed everything under the sun in Colonial America, but also confiscated weapons any time they had a chance.

    They also forced colonists to house and feed British soldiers without compensation, which is against the law now.  Read both the Articles and the Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

    While I wouldn’t mind having a couple of Marines in my house impatiently waiting for roast beef and gravy with new potatoes, I know they’d also be paying room and board to stay here.

    In regard to the Time Magazine article’s opinion about gun control, there was, a while back, a Ripley’s ‘Believe It Or Not’ cartoon about how 19th century Philadelphia’s streets were so hazardous with people shooting at each other that commuter trolleys were clad in steel armor to protect passengers. And while Hollywood glamorized shootouts in the Old West, they were really rather rare. Wm. Bonney, nee Henry McCarty, was a glory-hounding idiot whose sole purpose was to be known for what he did – shoot people to kill them.  And as I recall, the drive-by shootings in Chicago during the Depression were gang wars between Al Capone’s people and other hoodlums trying to cash in on Prohibition’s burgeoning illegal alcohol business. And there are, frankly, more drive-by shootings in Chcago now than there were during the Depression.

    The nutball who went into a synagogue and killed 11 people, including 4 police officers, had a hair up his backside, as did the “student” at Parkland HS in Florida earlier this year, the whack job from southern Illinois who shot up a GOPer softball game practice session, and the psycho who went to a hotel in Las Vegas last year for the sole purpose of shooting fish in a barrel at a concert near the hotel. They all want one thing: soft, easy targets combined with the element of surprise.

    Many of you have asserted that concealed carry laws reduce the number of lost lives. I would be quite comfortable patronizing a restaurant with a sign on its door that read “Responsible Concealed Carry Owners Welcome Here” if it meant a solid chance of stopping some warped creature from coming in and shooting the place up.

    Sometimes, I really do think these crackpots are in cahoots with the Lefterds.  Find a wacko with a chip on his shoulder over imagined wrongs (Trump won! Gaaaah!) and give him a pat on the back to go shoot people.

    And the response to that? Take away the soft target aspect by arming everyone; remove the element of surprise by posting notices that welcome CCWs. Stand up to “lawmakers” and these useless buggers whose butthurt crap is only relieved when they slaughter people.

    The hysterics about gun control are not going to quit. And it isn’t about gun control at all.  We all know that.

    It’s about destroying freedom.

  • How To Win a War Started by the Gun Grabbing Fascist Tits

     

    Crossbow Bumpstock

    I read an article on the “revolution” against gun grabbing/confiscation and the numbers, math, how gun owners could form a civilian army, etc.  And it won’t work well, because – well, lack of subtlety is the response.

    A few observations on my part. Guerrilla warfare, as anyone who was in-country in Vietnam will tell you, is not necessarily made up of shoot-shoot-bang-bang. It’s a lot more subtle than that. Pretty girls, for instance, will distract any male human animal (exceptions are noted) enough to take his mind off his target and plant it elsewhere.

    For example, there is black & white film stored on video showing Army trucks with replacement troops rolling into Bien Hoa, while alongside the road, on the dirt berm, all these young Vietnamese women dressed in traditional ao-dais and wearing that common coolie hat were watching and counting. When they thought the camera was on them, they immediately dropped the hat over the face. They were spies, as were the mama-sans and papa-sans who worked on the bases, counting empty racks and newly-made up racks and new duffel bags.

    If you really want to stop the gun grabbers, that asinine scene in conservation area in Oregon state in the winter of 2016 is THE dumbest thing EVER concocted by an egotistical asshole. No wonder it failed.

    You must be far more subtle, if you expect to win a war against Grabbing Your Guns By the Fascist Tits.

    Distracting the Gun Grabbing Fascist Tits while someone sabotages the vehicles isn’t all that hard.  Here are some suggestions:

    – Sabotaging vehicles does not require incendiary devices. That thinking is far too narrow and amateurish. You get a transceiver that picks up the remote key signal which is a radio frequency, clones it, open the door, pop the gas tank lid, and pour sugar into the gas tank. About two pounds should do it. Car thieves are using this cloning  technology now to steal cars without doing any damage to them, especially those with keyless ignitions. Piece of cake.

    – Cut their brake lines enough for the brake fluid to drain out slowly.

    – Pop the hood and cut the battery cables. Or just remove the batteries when you’re done messing with the vehicles.

    – Drain the antifreeze/coolant out of the radiator. There is a plug for that, you know.

    – Removing all the lugnuts from the wheels but leaving the tires in place will result in – what?

    – Try letting most of the air out of three of the tires until they are nearly flat, along with removing the lug nuts and mailing them back to their HQ.

    – As long as you have the vehicle doors open, pour fluorescent neon pink or orange or green paint on the seats, so that it gets on the Gun Grabbing Fascist Tits and stays there for weeks.

    – Remove all the license plates from the rear ends of all vehicles. Mail them back to their HQ from a city you don’t live in. Or use UPS.

    – Have a device that sets off all the alarms in all their vehicles, one after another, and they can’t shut it off because they are locked out. Keys no longer work. How come? Cloned radio frequency on each vehicle changed to a single frequency for all and they don’t have it. Like I said, car thieves do this all the time now.

    – Clone the same GPS signal for as many escape vehicles as possible, and once the Gun Grabbing Fascist Tits are distracted by the signal scatter, shut them off and remove them from your own vehicles, then turn them back on and leave them behind. (And yes, you can shut off your vehicle’s installed GPS, despite what people think.) Just make sure that you have these pursuers so far out in the boonies that they have to ask for directions back to Chicago or NYC or whatever at a local gas station, and maybe buy paper maps to get home.

    – And when they find them and open the doors, make sure you’ve left behind some very angry wasps in their nest.

    – Let them think they are closing in on the “lead escape vehicle” and when they’re all gathered together, release the balloons packed inside. Make sure the balloons have candy bars tied to them, and a way to rupture so that the candy lands on the Gun Grabbing Fascist Tits.

    – Plant a small transmitter in the target Gun Grabbing Fascist Tits’ vehicles that has a recording on it of Woody Woodpecker’s laugh or maybe Bugs Bunny ‘What’s up, Doc?’ – something inane and insane like that, which they can’t shut off because you have to stomp on it to stop it. Maybe under the carpeting next to the door on the driver’s side is a good spot.

    – Peel and put those large self-stick sheets on their windshields and back windows and outside mirrors, and be sure to include messages of “love” on them. Obscene drawings are okay, in this instance. Put them over the headlights and brake lights, too.

    – Know the area so well that you can drive home in the dark with no headlights, only using infrared on the road. Make sure you’re driving a dark-colored car, too.

    Come on, use your imagination. Don’t be so shoot-shoot-bang-bang about it. That’s too amateurish. You don’t want people sending you bags of fruit-flavored dicks in the mail, do you?