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

Category: Liberals suck

  • Does the Second Amendment Protect Only White Gun Owners? | American Civil Liberties Union

    The ACLU has become so caustic with their Anti-Trump nonsense nobody pays attention to their Grand Standing even when they talk about something that does need to be fixed.

    I have said that the more people we have carrying guns the more incidents we are going to have because of it.  That seems like common sense to me.

    It’s nearly impossible to cut out the Literary Lepracey that the Libtarded spew when writing about something.  It is shameful they cannot control themselves, particularly when they try to discuss a legitimate issue.

    The most common refrain from gun rights supporters in the wake of mass shootings or other gun violence is that the best response to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Yet in recent weeks, we have seen two Black men, a group already disproportionately victimized by police use of lethal force, shot and killed by police while protecting those around them with guns they were legally allowed to carry.

    It turns out that not only are unarmed African-Americans more likely to be shot, but those who seek to follow the advice of the National Rifle Association and others to arm themselves may only make themselves more vulnerable. It is especially troubling that gun rights proponents have largely been silent when police kill Black people for lawfully using their guns.

    For example, the NRA and President Trump — despite their embrace of the social media bullhorn — have not condemned the police for killing unarmed Black people. Moreover, they have yet to denounce police officers who kill Black people for possessing guns they’re legally entitled to carry.

    The police killings of legally armed Black citizens, and the refusal of leading gun-rights proponents to sincerely defend the victims, raises the same troubling question that both Martin Luther King Jr. and the Black Panther Party also confronted when they tried to exercise their rights to bear arms: In practice, do Second Amendment rights protect only white gun owners?

    The most recent example is Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford, Jr., a former Army recruit and a licensed firearm owner in Alabama, an open-carry state. The police department has yet to release the video of the incident, but we now know that Bradford was carrying his gun at a mall on Thanksgiving night when someone else began shooting — the kind of situation where gun proponents often claim that being armed will save the day.

    Bradford responded by drawing his gun and “directing shoppers to safety,” reported The New York Times. But when the police arrived, witnesses say they shot him “within milliseconds.” The police department initially asserted that Bradford was the mall shooter and lauded his killer as a hero.

    But it was wrong.

    The department has since admitted this statement was “not totally accurate” in at least two ways. First, the officer shot the wrong man, and the mall shooter was actually still at large. Next, police admitted that Bradford had not “brandished” the gun but simply had it in his hand when officers approached. An independent autopsy has revealed that Bradford was shot three times from behind.

    President Trump has had nothing to say about this tragedy. The most to come from the NRA is spokesperson Dana Loesch tweeting her surprise that the police have refused to release the bodycam footage. But even that statement took more than a week. As Black Alabamans and racial justice allies protested in the days following Bradford’s death, the organization said nothing about the reality of race in America or about how Black men are denied the right to bear arms that others enjoy.

    Instead of acknowledging Bradford, a real-life good guy with a gun, it tweeted a quote from its executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre: “To preserve our values and protect our freedom, America needs the good guys to step up like never before.”

    And Bradford’s death isn’t even an isolated incident.

    Just two weeks prior, police officers killed Jemel Roberson, a Black security guard and registered gun owner, who responded when several men began shooting at the Illinois nightclub where he worked. When the police arrived, Roberson was doing his job: He legally had his gun out and had subdued one of the men with his knee in the man’s back.

    It didn’t matter.

    The officers shot and killed Roberson, even as witnesses warned them he was a security guard. Roberson has widely been lauded as a hero, and even the police department later conceded Roberson was “a brave man who was doing his best to end an active shooter situation.”

    But again, gun rights proponents have been quiet.

    When Philando Castile was killed in 2016 after telling the police officer who stopped his car that he had a gun and a license to carry one — the recommended procedure for announcing the presence of a gun to an officer — gun rights advocates were again silent. The NRA said nothing about Castile’s case for more than a year.When Loesch finally did offer a statement, she stopped short of criticizing the police officer, cryptically saying that “… there were a lot of things that I wish would have been done differently.” She suggested that an NRA Carry Guard card could have prevented his killing. But the officer shot Mr. Castile while he was reaching for his driver’s license and registration, so it’s not clear how having an NRA card in his wallet could have possibly helped.

    This equivocation is unprincipled. Whatever one’s view of the appropriate scope of the Second Amendment, it ought to extend to all equally, without regard to race.

    Americans that will pull a weapon in defense of the innocent are everywhere, law enforcement better learn to deal with it or be held accountable when they do not.

    Killing brave Americans is unacceptable.

     

    Source: Does the Second Amendment Protect Only White Gun Owners? | American Civil Liberties Union

  • Brenda Snipes Takes Back Resignation as Broward’s Elections Chief

    snipes
    Katherine Rodriguez
    Disgraced Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes took back her decision to resign as the county’s elections chief on Saturday after Gov. Rick Scott suspended her from her duties.

    Snipes’ attorney announced at a Saturday press conference that her client would be rescinding her decision to resign from the post in January and vowed she would be “fighting this to the very end

    “We believe these actions are malicious,” said Snipes’ attorney, Burnadette Norris-Weeks, telling Broward County voters that Scott’s appointment to the post could affect the predominantly Democratic county in the 2020 elections.

    Scott suspended Snipes via executive order on Friday, appointing his former general counsel, Peter Antonacci, to the post to serve out the rest of her term. Antonacci would serve until November 2020, when voters will choose Snipes’ replacement.

    State law requires the Florida Senate to vote on removing or reinstating county officials if the governor decides to suspend them.

    The outgoing Florida Republican governor cited her “misfeasance, incompetence, and neglect of duty” during the recount for the 2018 U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races.

    Suspended? She should be behind bars for election fraud. The rest of the article may be viewed here at Breitbart News

  • The Peasants are Rioting in Paris….

    The French are rioting over Macron’s increase in the carbon tax.

    https://www.atr.org/french-revolt-against-carbon-tax

    In France, diesel fuel is now at $8.20/gal and gasoline at $9.00/gal. The bulk of the price at the pump here is taxes, not fuel costs. Macron wants to increase the carbon tax in France to $63/tonne. There is no reason for it, other than his personal greed factor. It goes for absolutely nothing other than payola to IPCC and to line his pockets.

    From the article: The loudest and most famous voice from the weekend protest is that of Jacline Mouraud, a diesel owner from Brittany who has become the star of the yellow vest movement due to her YouTube videos and appearance on all major French news outlets.

    “You have persecuted drivers since the day you took office. This will continue for how long?” she said in a YouTube video that has millions of views. “You only need those taxes for new china in the Élysée palace or another expensive swimming pool for your private residence!”

    This seems to be a growing movement in France since 283,000 people in 2,000 locations rioted and burned stuff over it. I’m waiting to see how long it takes Macron to realize that  – well, the French generally hate him. But they voted him in over Marie LePen, and she warned them what would happen.

    The link to WUWT’s article is here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/02/president-macrons-climate-change-fuel-tax-riots-continue-in-paris/

    It also appears that in Paris, some of the rioting is the work of groups closely resembling the antifas here this country. There is much damage in Paris, and Macron is ‘shocked’ about it.  Well, les Crapeaux had a chance to vote in Marine le Pen, but they went for this King of Disconnectedness instead. I wonder if he will offer the peasants cake to eat.

    It is not just in France that this tax-to-death attitude is going on. There is a proposed bill coming up to inflict a $55/ton carbon tax on us, the unsuspecting public.

    I’ve already discussed how a similar tax proposed by IPCC on my gas bill alone would cost me income I simply do not have.  I did the simple math to find out what this carbon so-called tax might cost me, the same as the IPCC’s carbon tax, which was a staggering $21,000 per month by 2030, based on cubic feet of natural gas usage.

    Converting therms to tons was easy enough. There is a site that does that. The result for me was 3.774892954361 tons in January 2018, which is about average for me. My January bill is usually $115 to $120, depending on the weather. The carbon tax is an incremental tax, meaning that it starts low but increases every year for five years to an unconscionable $55/ton, which in my case is $206.14, making my wintertime household gas bill $325.98, an amount that is unaffordable at best, and egregious at its worst.

    This proposed so-called tax is not meant to benefit any of us at the taxpaying end of the economic scale. It will simply go into a massive slush fund with an elaborate title that this bunch of tax-sucking slugs in Congress will be able to dip into at will.

    https://www.atr.org/details-horrible-carbon-tax-bill

    The real anti-growth economic impact for the USA is discussed here:  https://www.atr.org/study-shows-devastating-economic-impacts-carbon-tax

    From ATR:  A carbon tax will not be pro-growth. Most carbon tax scenarios reduce GDP for the entirety of the 22-year forecast period. 

    Better than break-even economic performance may not be possible unless revenue is devoted entirely to corporate tax relief. A lump-sum rebate results in lost GDP equal to between $3.76 trillion and $5.92 trillion over the 22-year forecast period.

    That is trillions, not millions or billions of dollars – trillions lost to this nonsense.

    If you want to drive a thriving economy into a profound economic Depression, you tax the living daylights out of it until it is squeezed dry. Keep raising taxes and before long, there will be no more taxes to be found. We had a revolution in this country a while back because George III imposed a Stamp Tax Act on everything that was printed, to squeeze colonists dry. We fought that, and won.

    Here’s something else that is disturbing: the Bill authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents:  The bill authorizes armed carbon tax enforcement agents to collect the new tax on energy used by Americans. As if customs enforcement doesn’t already have enough on its plate, the bill states:

    “The revenues collected under this chapter may be used to supplement appropriations made available in fiscal years 2018 and thereafter –

    “(1) to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, in such amounts as are necessary to administer the carbon border fee adjustment.”

    So, if you somehow don’t pay this energy tax into this slush fund, you’ll get arrested???? If it shows up on my gas bill, which is my only source of carbon, men with guns and badges are going to show up on my doorstep demanding money from me? Aside from this looney-tune proposal, this loudly smacks of Gestapo tactics to me.

    The true nature of this proposed tax is discussed at the links, but most egregious is the 2-child limit per household included in the language of the proposal.  Here it is, straight from the bill text:

    “A carbon dividend payment is one pro-rata share for each adult and half a pro-rata share for each child under 19 years old, with a limit of 2 children per household, of amounts available for the month in the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund.”

    The reasoning behind a limit of 2 children per household is not specified, not at all. Because it is poorly written, it can be read as a means of forcing population control on families, which is what the Chinese government has been doing for decades.

    You may want to call Florida Republican Congressman Francis Rooney at 202-225-2536 and ask him why he has signed onto this absurd and harmful Democrat tax proposed by Deutsch, which seeks to impose a tax that is nothing but a feed into a slush fund. You should also call your own Congress critters and tell them to vote against this bill. Or send them e-mails to that effect. And sounding angry about it, in a civilized way, is acceptable. It isn’t a sales tax. It is larceny.

    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 will lose the very things we value most.

     

  • 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)

  • Patton Was a Poet? Who Knew?

    Band of Brothers

    Well, if that don’t beat all. It explains a lot, though.

    From a MilitaryNews article dated 11 Nov 2018 at Military.com | By Richard Sisk

    From the article:   Not everybody was happy that World War I ended on Nov. 11, 1918, possibly least of all an Army colonel named George S. Patton.

    https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/11/11/legendary-general-patton-hated-peace-so-much-he-wrote-poem-about-it.html

    Patton, then 32, wrote a poem titled “Peace — Nov. 11, 1918” in which he expressed contempt for civilians cheering the silencing of the guns that would deprive him and other warriors of “the whitehot joy of taking human life.”

    “The poem described Patton’s ‘dismay’ at the popular excitement that greeted the peace, which he characterized as the ‘cruel glee of the weak,’” the notes continue. “Patton’s poem mourned the loss during peacetime of the virtues that he believed war inspired, such as sacrifice and purpose.”

    Patton was dyslexic, which left the poem full of misspelled words, but the original draft is on disply as part of a display by the Library of Congress.

    The library’s notes say “an editor, possibly Patton’s wife Beatrice, has crossed out those lines that express especially strong sentiments like comparing peaceful life to ‘a festering sewer’ ” in the draft of the poem on exhibit.

    The reference is to the following lines:

    “Looking forward I could see

    Life like a festering sewer

    Full of the fecal Pacafists [sic]

    Which peace makes us endure”

    If you bring this up to current events, does it almost seem prescient, as in a vague way, a reference to the disturbances we see now in politics?

    If you go back into the histories of both World Wars, neither Woodrow Wilson nor Franklin Roosevelt wanted to be involved in the war in Europe. Both of them were Socialists in their thinking, with Wilson wanting a one world government through the League of Nations, and Roosevelt leaning toward government work programs to resolve the economic issues of the Great Depression. Both of them were reluctantly dragged into those wars, Wilson by a U-boat sinking the Lusitania in the Atlantic, and Roosevelt by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Neither of them understood (or seemed to want to understand) that pacifism of the kind that Angela Merkel has offered Europe for some time now leads to destruction of your society. And she’s lost her majority because the AfD received enough votes to take a seat in Parliament.

    What Patton forgot, in his disdain for peacetime, was that while it is necessary to be prepared to defend your home from invaders, peacetime is the reward for successfully doing so… until the next bunch of barbarians show up at the gates.

    I think Pres. Trump understands it quite well and is willing to rattle Vlad’s doorknobs and confront Xi JinPing as he did Li’l Fatty Kim da T’ird, who, BTW, has been squabbling over negotiations with South Korea, although they are continuing to dismantle the guard posts.  (See  below)   https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2018/11/11/2-koreas-complete-the-disarming-of-22-guard-posts/

    That’s something to consider and discuss at length.

  • Tucker Carlson’s Daughter Harassed at Restaurant

    Tucker CarlsonMan approached teenage daughter and said: “Are you Tucker’s whore? He then called her a ‘f***ing c**t.”

    Creepy Porn Lawyer Michael Avenatti wants Tucker or others charged for defending her
    Posted by Mike LaChance

    Keep it classy Dems. Caution, NWS language ahead.

    Tucker Carlson is already dealing with the fact that an Antifa mob showed up at his house and terrorized his wife, but now there has been another incident. While dining at a country club in Virginia with two of his children, one of his daughters was allegedly harassed by a patron who made positively vile comments to her.

    It was so bad, the man’s membership in the club was ultimately revoked. And now the creepy porn lawyer is “investigating” the incident.

    Proceed with caution, the language in this story is reprehensible.

    Natasha Korecki and Quint Forgey report at Politico:

    Avenatti takes on Tucker Carlson after bar incident involving Fox News host’s children

    Michael Avenatti, who was once dubbed a “creepy porn lawyer” on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program,
    claimed Saturday he’s “investigating an alleged assault … committed by T. Carlson” stemming from an incident at a Virginia restaurant.

    The attorney, who is exploring a 2020 presidential run and rose to national prominence by representing porn star Stormy Daniels against President Donald Trump, posted video on his Twitter account Saturday showing Carlson in a verbal altercation at a country club and asks for help in identifying other people involved in the incident.

    Carlson, in a lengthy statement provided through Fox News, said the incident began when a man at the club last month verbally harassed his teenage daughter on her way back from a bathroom and called her a “whore” and “cunt.”

    He acknowledged that his son then confronted the man and threw wine at him. But Carlson maintains neither he nor his son assaulted the man involved. Avenatti disputed that account, saying it’s an “absolute lie.”

    This reprehensible behavior goes far beyond a group of idiots chanting and yelling at people having a meal with friends and family, so it’s hardly surprising the Creepy Porn Lawyer is involved. The debacle may be viewed at the Legal Insurrection site.

  • 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.