In the fall of 1989, the peoples of Eastern Europe rose up against their Communist oppressors. The tyrants ruling these nations had no moral compunction about shooting their subjects down, but fortunately, they couldn’t count on their armed forces to do it. So the Iron Curtain fell, and two years later, even the mighty Soviet Union was brought down when the Red Army, sent into Moscow, refused the orders of those attempting to brutally reinstate Stalinist rule.
But imagine what might have occurred had those soldiers been not human beings but robots, lacking in any sympathy or humanity, ready, willing, and able to reliably massacre anyone the authorities chose to be their targets.
This is the threat posed by the emerging technology known as “autonomous weapons.”…………….
This danger is illustrated by a recent paper written by a committee of artificial-intelligence experts, which included both strong advocates for autonomous weaponry and some with more cautious attitudes. Reaching a compromise, the group proposed that:
States should consider adopting a 5-year, renewable moratorium on the development, deployment, transfer, and use of anti-personnel lethal autonomous weapon systems . . .
The moratorium would not apply to:
Anti-vehicle or anti-materiel weapons
Non-lethal anti-personnel weapons
Research on ways of improving autonomous weapon technology to reduce non-combatant harm in future anti-personnel lethal autonomous weapon systems
Weapons that find, track, and engage specific individuals whom a human has decided should be engaged within a limited predetermined period of time and geographic region.
One cannot help but note that most of the applications called out to be excluded from the moratorium are those directed against civilians, rather than opposing armed forces.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (WPRI) — A man accused of robbing another man at gunpoint was ultimately shot by the victim, Providence Police said.
The robbery and shooting happened on Simmons Street shortly before 11 p.m. Monday night.
Tyrelle Palmer, 26, was charged with armed robbery after being located by police at Rhode Island Hospital, according to a police report.
According to the report, the alleged victim told officers he was outside his home smoking when Palmer “came up to him and placed a firearm to his head and said, ‘run your pockets.’”
According to the victim, Palmer wasn’t “satisfied” with what was in his pockets and pushed him inside the apartment. A physical altercation ensued, and the victim was able to reach his own gun and shoot Palmer, according to the report.
The report says Palmer fled the home, and the victim returned his gun to his safe.
Major David Lapatin said the robbery victim is not being charged with shooting Palmer, though the incident is still under investigation.
Why do Democrats want to take away your AR-15? The fact that such a weapon was used by the Odessa shooter was the basis for Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s infamous declaration: “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!” But this is like banning cars because automobile accidents kill more than 40,000 Americans a year, or banning tall buildings because more than 35,000 Americans die each year from accidental falls. O’Rourke is advocating what might be called the Instrumental Theory of Evil: The cause of our problems is not bad people, but bad things. Therefore, ban the evil things!
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke dismissed criticism and “hang-wringing” about his much-discussed debate statement that “Hell yes” he wants to confiscate assault weapons, saying those concerns “just show you how screwed up the priorities in Washington, D.C., are.”
“I refuse to even acknowledge the politics or the polling or the fear or the NRA,” O’Rourke told “NBC’s Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd on Sunday. “That has purchased the complicity and silence of members of Congress.”
See, according to O’Rourke, the reason we have not yet banned the evil AR-15 is because, unlike him, other people lack courage and integrity. Democrats believe guns are evil, and therefore only bad people own guns, which means that prejudice against gun owners is a virtue. This explains why the campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination has become a contest to see who hates gun owners the most. Does it matter that the premise of their argument is demonstrably wrong?
In 1994, a ten-year prohibition on the manufacture, possession, and transfer of certain “semiautomatic assault weapons” was signed into law.
And what was the result of this ban? . . . A Justice Department report examining the impact of the ban was underwhelming at best. “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” the report states.
The report goes on to explain that the law’s larger impact on overall gun violence was minimal, because the banned weapons were rarely involved in criminal acts in the first place. According to the FBI, rifles — a broader category that lumps together your grandpappy’s hunting rifle with military-style rifles — constitute an average of 340 homicides per year. Though any loss of life is tragic, these numbers don’t exactly rise to the occasion in solving what is commonly characterized as a national epidemic. . . .
Between 2007 and 2018, 173 people were killed by mass shooters using an AR-15, according to a New York Times analysis — roughly, 15 per year. (For perspective, 13 people die per year from vending machines falling on them.) The fearmongering regarding this weapon becomes even more apparent when one considers the estimated 8 million AR-15s currently in circulation — the vast majority of which will never be involved in a crime.
So, just to make sure everybody’s got this in proper perspective: According to the FBI, there were 17,284 murders in the United States. Also, according to the FBI, in an average year, rifles are the weapons used in 340 homicides. Simple math tells us that rifles — all rifles, of every kind — are used in less than 2% of U.S. murders, and AR-15s account for only a tiny fraction (0.09%) of U.S. murders.
Even if we banned all rifles, 98% of murders would still happen, and banning AR-15s wouldn’t even reduce murders by one-tenth of 1%! Yet the audience at the Democrat debate erupted in applause when O’Rourke promised that “we” (i.e., Democrats) are “going to take your AR-15.”
Democrats hate you. They really, really hate you.
“….when Taran Tactical makes a boogaloo reference”
Today, September 17, in 1787, the U.S. Constitution was formally adopted and signed. It would take until June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, that it became “The Supreme Law of The Land”
Several state’s representatives would demand that a list of amendments, a ‘Bill of Rights‘, be complied and also submitted for ratification before agreeing to ratify the original.
A judge has dismissed more of the bogus charges against Sandra Merritt, who helped expose Planned Parenthood’s sales of aborted baby parts along with David Daleiden.
Judge Christopher Hite of the San Francisco Superior Court has already dismissed one and a half of the 15 felony criminal charges brought against Sandra Merritt by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for her undercover journalism work which exposed Planned Parenthood’s trade in baby body parts. The statute of limitations has run out on these dismissed charges so they cannot be brought again.
The undercover videos, most of which were recorded at the National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) 2014 and 2015 abortion convention and trade shows, exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal involvement in harvesting and selling aborted baby body parts to companies such as StemExpress. The recordings capture Planned Parenthood executives haggling over the prices of baby body parts, picking through bloodied arms and legs of aborted babies in a pie tray, and discussing how to alter abortion methods to obtain better body parts for sale.
Merritt and Merritt’s co-defendant, David Daleiden, the founder of the Center for Medical Progress, are the first undercover journalists to be criminally prosecuted in the history of the state. As Liberty Counsel defends Merritt, no other citizen journalist or journalism organization has ever been charged with a crime for undercover recordings made in the public interest.
During the two-week preliminary criminal hearing, Judge Hite dismissed the charge regarding “Doe 8,” an abortion professor at a taxpayer-funded, public university, who never showed up to testify last week.
The other charge concerned two alleged events with “Doe 9,” a Planned Parenthood doctor. However, half of that charge was dismissed since the attorney general’s office never played the video in court of the alleged incident on April 8, 2014.
WINCHESTER® Super-X 17 HMR 20 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point
Olin Winchester, LLC is recalling two (2) lots of 17 HMR 20 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point Rimfire rifle ammunition.
Lot Numbers (last four characters): NB51 and NB61
Winchester has determined the above lots of 17 HMR ammunition may contain no powder charges. Ammunition with no powder charges may result in a bullet remaining in the barrel (i.e., a bullet-in-bore obstruction). Firing a subsequent bullet into the bore obstruction could cause firearm damage, rendering the firearm inoperable and subjecting the shooter and bystanders to a risk of serious personal injury.
DO NOT USE WINCHESTER® 17 HMR 20 GRAIN JHP SYMBOL X17HMR1 THAT HAS A LOT NUMBER ENDING IN NB51 or NB61. The ammunition Lot Number is stamped on the top of the 1000-round case and the outside of the 50-round plastic box as indicated here.
To determine if your ammunition is subject to this notice, review the Symbol and Lot Number. If it is Symbol X17HMR1 and the last four characters of the Lot Number are NB51 or NB61, immediately discontinue use and contact Winchester toll-free at 844-653-8358 for free UPS pick-up of the recalled ammunition.
This notice applies only to Symbol X17HMR1 with Lot Numbers ending in NB51 and NB61. Other Symbols or Lot Numbers are not subject to this recall.
If you have any questions concerning this 17 HMR rimfire rifle ammunition recall please call toll-free 844-653-8358, write to Winchester (600 Powder Mill Road, East Alton, IL 62024 Attn: X17HMR1 Recall), or visit our website at www.winchester.com.
We apologize for this inconvenience.
September 12, 2019
President Donald Trump will not consider the House-passed universal background checks bill as part of his proposed gun package, according to a source familiar with the conversation on guns.
Trump’s position on the House-passed bill is not exactly a surprise. The White House issued a veto threat against the bill in February.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have called on Trump repeatedly to bring up the House-passed universal background checks bill. Over the weekend, Pelosi and Schumer issued a statement following a phone call with Trump that anything other than the House-passed bill “will not get the job done.”
Schumer reiterated his calls Monday for the White House to back the House proposal.
“We’re certainly willing to discuss the finer points of legislation with our Republican colleagues, but we made one thing clear to the president — the effectiveness of gun safety measures will be severely compromised if we allow the loopholes in our background check system to remain intact,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.
But Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said Monday that Schumer and Pelosi were merely trying to score political points.
“The things that they are proposing just aren’t realistic and they know that and so it’s designed more to talk to their political base and it’s a lot more about that than I think an actual solution,” Thune said.
Trump met again with aides Monday to discuss proposals to address gun violence. The White House expects to release the package of proposals this week but Trump is on a campaign trip to New Mexico and California though Wednesday night. On Friday, he will host an all-day state visit for officials from Australia. His schedule makes Thursday the most likely day, though nothing has been scheduled.
Yet, we hear next to nothing on the national media do we?
Must not be the correct subsection of the population.
Iran’s Attack on Saudi Arabia Reveals Our Foreign Policy Muddle
We’re stuck in fossilized paradigms while our enemies grow stronger.
The mad mullahs aren’t mad, but moslem schemers that have to, at least, be contained, or otherwise ‘rendered inert’.
Hard upon President Trump’s misguided outreach to the Taliban, rumors are circulating of a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani at the upcoming UN General Assembly meeting. Trump has also publicly stated he doesn’t want regime-change in Tehran. This “let’s make a deal” mentality, even with foes who have repeatedly declared and carried out their malign intentions against us, bespeaks more than just the president’s volatile personality and experience in Manhattan real estate.
Indeed, after the probably Iranian-engineered missile attacks on Saudi oil refineries that knocked out half its productive capacity, Trump’s gestures of outreach to the mullahs have now become even more dangerous, and made the need for long-overdue significant military action to punish and deter the mullahs more urgent,
Equally urgent is the revision of a foreign-policy paradigm many years in years in the making and mired in received wisdom. It took root after World War II ended the malign ideologies of fascism, Nazism, and Japanese racist militarism. Even though those murderous movements put the lie to the long dream of a global “harmony of interests” institutionalized in transnational treaties and supranational organizations, the West created the UN, NATO, the World Bank, and other global institutions that would help contain the Soviet Union while the global economy increased wealth and distributed it more widely. The collapse of the Soviet Union fed the illusion that the triumph of liberal democracy was assured, and that its last ideological rival was dispatched without another world war.
But multinational institutions didn’t bring about the end of the Soviet Union, or the communist ideology still riling some parts of the world, and also gaining popularity in this country in its “kinder, gentler” manifestation as “democratic socialism.” Likewise, despite the orthodox paradigm of our foreign policy and national security agencies, NATO did not “keep the peace” in Europe. Peace was achieved by U.S. nuclear weapons, forward-deployed military forces, and “proxy duels” fought to contain Soviet-sponsored aggression. And Soviet communism as an ideology was discredited by visionary leaders like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II. They saw beyond the shibboleths of “détente” and “outreach” and “summits,” and realized that given an “evil empire”–– as Reagan called it to the scorn of foreign policy savants–– that was ideologically committed to our destruction, the only strategy should be, “We win, they lose,” as Reagan famously said. Diplomacy works only when the enemy believes in your commitment to use lethal force.
Before that recovery of nerve, Jimmy Carter bungled our response to the Iranian Revolution and its jihadist mission to “fight all men until they say there is god but Allah,” as Mohammed instructed. Thus the Islamic Republic of Iran, came into being, a consequence of Carter’s foreign policy idealism, which empowered the mullahs rise to power. Carter ran an “international rules-based order” foreign policy, and he believed that American restraint and “principled” example on human rights would promote the spread of democracy and peace. His speeches and writings were redolent of the post-Vietnam “crisis of confidence” and “recent mistakes,” and counseled that America had “recognized limits.” Rather than the wars of containment, Carter highlighted “our commitment to human rights,” and promised that “we will not behave in foreign places so as to violate our rules and standards here as home.” “Moral principles,” he intoned, “were the best foundation for the exertion of American power and influence.” This statement is good example of what historian Corelli Barnett called the “moralizing internationalism” that had been developing since the late 19th century and reached its gruesome repudiation at Munich and the 60 million dead that followed.
The problem with such idealism is, as the cliché goes, the enemy has a vote about what comprises “moral principles,” and it’s unlikely that good examples, foreign aid, or restraint in the face of aggression will change their minds. A readiness to punish swiftly and brutally attacks on our security and interests, the willingness to employ the “mailed fist,” as Duff Cooper said of dealing with Hitler, rather than “sweet persuasion,” creates the prestige that deters aggressors. After 9/11 we did recover some of that lost respect with the swift victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those successes were the monitory “examples” that got Syria’s Bashar Assad out of Lebanon, and convinced Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi to dismantle his nuclear weapon facilities–– and to let us watch him do it.
When even The Hill believes nothing’s going to happen….
Prospects for a bipartisan deal on gun control legislation have dimmed significantly as President Trump and Democratic leaders appear to be far apart on the key issue of expanding background checks.
Republicans expect Trump to put forward a proposal addressing gun violence later this week, but Democrats predict it is likely to fall far short of what is needed and that they may not vote for it.
Democrats are pressing Trump to agree to a gun control bill already approved by the House, but the president has yet to even signal support for a scaled-down background check bill sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
“I don’t think anyone thinks he’s going to endorse the Toomey bill, which is weaker than the House bill,” said a senior Democratic aide, expressing growing doubt on Capitol Hill that Trump will strike a bipartisan deal.
As a result, the likelihood that Congress will fail to take action on gun violence a month after a new spate of shootings across the country appears to be growing.
Universities in the 20th century were dedicated to the advancement of knowledge. Scholarship and research were pursued, and diverse opinions were exchanged and argued in the “marketplace of ideas.”
This is no longer the case. Particularly in the social sciences, humanities, education, social work, and law, a single political ideology has replaced scholarship and research, because the ideology presents fixed answers to all questions. And, although the most important thing in universities today is the diversity of race, gender, sexual practice, ethnicity, economic class, and physical and mental capability, there is no longer diversity of opinion. Only those committed to the ideology are admitted to academic staff or administration.
Universities have been transformed by the near-universal adoption of three interrelated theories: postmodernism, postcolonialism, and social justice. These theories and their implications will be explored here:
There Is No Truth; Nothing Is Good or Bad
All Cultures Are Equally Good; Diversity Is Our Strength
The West Is Evil; The Rest Are Virtuous
Only the West Was Imperialist and Colonialist
Israeli Colonialists Are White Supremacists
Canadian? You Have No Right to Stolen Native Land
White Men Are Evil; Women of Color Are Virtuous
Individuals Are Not Important; Only Category Membership Is
Justice Is Equal Representation According to Percentages of the Population
Members of Oppressor Categories Must Be Suppressed
Victims of The World Unite!
Being Educated Is About Being on The Right Side
The opinion of some pretty informed political analysts is that O’Rourke knows his campaign is going nowhere. So, for some future consideration, he’s been tasked with being the rabid radical nutjob spouting these grandiosely idiotic plans so that the real gun-grabber agenda can be pointed at as more ‘reasonable’. But that still doesn’t cut him any slack with me.
Robert “Beto” O’Rourke explained he plans to use fines to “compel” American gun owners to comply with his AR-15 ban, during a weekend exchange with reporters.
O’Rourke made his claim in a video posted by Fox4 DFW’s Teresa Riley.
Question: what happens if people don’t sell their guns back to the govt….answer: pic.twitter.com/wGuXJlBZQG
— Teresa Riley (@TeresaRFox4) September 15, 2019
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ~ George Orwell, writer and essayist, from his novel on a Dystopian society, 1984
Engaging in compromise with those who abhor firearms and who detest those who choose to exercise their sacred right to keep and bear arms will serve only to compromise that right, destroying the Second Amendment.
The American citizenry are a free, powerful, sovereign people living in a free Constitutional Republic; a Nation that belongs to the entire citizenry, not to a select few individuals among the citizenry; and definitely not to the Government, an entity created to serve the citizenry, not to subjugate and oppress it. The words codified in the Second Amendment make this fundamental truth plain. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms make this truth a reality. The New Progressive Left seeks to erase the words of the Second Amendment from the Constitution.
If these radical Left-wing elements succeed in compromising the Nation by undercutting the Constitution, then the American people, like the populations of the EU, will face unending misery; misery manifesting in the suppression of basic freedoms, constant surveillance, control over thought and conduct, and penury; a sad, oppressive life, nay, something less than life: mere existence—in a new political, social, economic, and cultural construct; one that has erased the independence and sovereignty of our Nation and of all Western nation-states; destroying, as well, the constitutions, laws, and jurisprudence of all nation-states.
But to accomplish their goal, the New Progressive Left in our Country must indoctrinate our children, and reeducate those adults who aren’t so easily susceptible to prolific proselytizing and propagandizing; those adults who are not so willing to accept the fiction that our fundamental rights and liberties aren’t rights at all and never had been, but are merely man-made constructs, mere privileges, bestowed on the American people by grace of Government and by that same authority of Government would those same privileges be rescinded.
If the public believes the fiction—if, in fact, the public believes that fundamental, immutable, inalienable rights are not, at all, rights preexistent in man, bestowed on man by a loving Divine Creator, but are mere privileges, vouchsafe granted by Government to men—then these Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, will find it much easier to weaken and ultimately negate the one right that alone serves as the means of preventing subjugation of the American citizenry, and it is that one, fundamental right that most concerns them: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The problem for those of us who seek to preserve and strengthen our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms is found less in the Radical Left or New Progressive Left elements now controlling the seditious Press and who have insinuated themselves in and are now legion in the Democratic Party but:
The growing possibility is that the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans might actually consider negotiating with the Democrats and in so doing, weaken rather than preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
What we must do is to make plain to both the U.S. President and to Congressional Republicans that they must not capitulate. We must make clear to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that to cave in to Democrat demands for “muscular new gun control proposals,”—that Progressive Left Democrat Candidates for U.S. President, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren, are calling for, as reported by The New York Times, on September 3, 2019, in an article titled, “Demanding Gun Control, but Differing on Tactics,”—is not the way to deal with these gun grabbers.
I don’t think I’m alone when I say it’s frustrating having the same conversation over and over and over again. I’m frustrated trying to explain the difference between a semi-automatic and a “military-style assault” weapon, parrying asinine retorts of how our Founding Fathers “only had muskets,” and being told by strangers what weapons I “don’t need.” I’m frustrated with citing statistical evidence showing that the vast majority of gun violence in America is the result of suicides and of criminals who have obtained their guns illegally. I’m frustrated with trying to justify my personal choices to people who are completely ignorant about guns and who are completely unwilling to learn.
I’m frustrated because it’s an exercise in futility. They return the very next day to push their very same debunked talking points that I’ve spent the last conversation refuting. Deploying factual evidence works only when dealing with people for whom factual evidence is valued, acknowledged, and conceded. When they simply ignore it and continue to talk over you, there is no benefit in trying to make them see reason. It is like talking to a brick wall.
If reducing gun violence were an honest aim of the Left, leftists would follow the evidence where it leads. But leftists oppose gun ownership not out of any heartfelt reaction to mass shootings (though they routinely go through the necessary public genuflections). They don’t care about dead students, dead Walmart shoppers, dead worshipers, dead police, or dead black Americans. They don’t care about getting help for the mentally ill. They care about the consolidation of political power into a centralized totalitarian entity, which they arrogantly assume they possess the competence to administer.
Lawmakers such as state senator Julie Morrison (D-Ill.) have smugly threatened mass confiscation, and others such as Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) have suggested prosecution and prison time for noncompliance with mandatory buyback programs. During the September 12 debate, the floundering Robert Francis O’Rourke (D-Nowhere) gazed up from his water bong to yelp, “Hell, yes, we are going to take your AR-15!”
Scary words, to be sure. But these threats raise the question of who exactly they plan on sending out to do the actual confiscating. Do something! they scream from the podiums and across the Twittersphere, with no intention of ever actually doing that “something” themselves. The bell-collared audience who noisily bleated their approval for O’Rourke’s rhetorical feed bucket? They’re not going to “do something,” either, other than demand someone else do it.
That’s the job of the police, they say? Good luck with that. Out of the 250 million adults living in the United States, approximately one third of them own one or more guns. That’s over 80 million doors for police to bust down in unconstitutional searches and seizures (these would be clear violations of the Fourth Amendment, but we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if the Bill of Rights were something the Left even pretended to respect).
Like combat soldiers, police can refuse orders they deem immoral or unconstitutional. Polls continuously show (here, here, and here) that police overwhelmingly support the right of law-abiding citizens to own semi-automatic rifles, including AR-15s. So how successful will be the efforts of the anti-police Left to convince the very same officers they hate to bust into American homes to steal guns the police think they have a right to own? The growing trend of elected sheriffs and officials creating Second Amendment sanctuaries by publicly opting to not enforce unconstitutional gun laws should give pause to leftists who feel that America’s police will do their dirty work for them.
Even if a hypothetical Presidente O’Rourke were able to cajole every American police officer to act as his own personal Stasi, such a force would still be inadequate for the task of disarming millions of gun-owners. This reality is amplified by the fact that about three quarters of gun-owners say gun ownership is essential to their freedom, giving a sense of just how much non-compliance such an effort would encounter.
Nor should they count on the members of a woke population to voluntarily disarm themselves. The much touted New Zealand buyback program has confiscated under 10% of known banned weapons. Mandatory registration laws in deep blue Connecticut, New York, and California have garnered compliance rates of 15%, 4%, and 3%, respectively. This is not even for confiscation, but for registration only. How well do they think buyback programs will fare in Texas or Ohio?
Nope. If they want guns confiscated, they’ll have to do it themselves.
Friday, September 13th, 2019BELLEVUE, WA – Democrat presidential hopeful Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke’s outburst on gun control during Thursday evening’s presidential debate, and the applause that followed, effectively erased any doubts about the true intent the candidate, his party and their followers have toward the Second Amendment, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
“Hell, yes,” O’Rourke blurted, “we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!”
“O’Rourke’s comment was brutally revealing,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “and so was the reaction from the audience. His intent to confiscate privately-owned firearms got the biggest cheer of the evening. Even more alarming was the fact that not one of his colleagues on stage made an effort to disagree. That should concern every gun owner in the country.
“Second Amendment activists have been ridiculed by Democrats and the gun prohibition lobby for years,” he continued. “Their condescending assurances that ‘nobody is going to take your guns’ just went out the window, thanks to O’Rourke, who even said the same thing last year while campaigning for the U.S. Senate.
“O’Rourke can’t walk that back,” Gottlieb observed. “His outburst is getting more media attention than anything else he’s said on the campaign trail. The reaction from the audience, and the silence of other candidates confirms what we’ve been saying. Just look online; they’re already selling T-shirts with his comment on the front!
“Thanks to O’Rourke,” he noted, “Democrats have just graduated from being the ‘party of gun control’ to officially being the ‘party of gun confiscation,’ and nobody in the firearms community is going to forget that.
“From this moment forward,” he predicted, “when Democrats talk about ‘gun reform’ or ‘gun safety,’ the whole country will know they’re not just talking about gun control, they’re talking about taking firearms from law-abiding citizens who have committed no crime.
“Obviously,” Gottlieb stated, “O’Rourke’s party is no longer interested in piecemeal erosion of the Second Amendment. Their intent now is to smash it. How can Democrats expect any gun owner to believe otherwise unless the party, especially the other candidates, immediately disavow and condemn O’Rourke’s remark? Their silence is both deafening, and damning.”
CONYERS, Ga. — Three masked teenagers were fatally shot after a shootout with a homeowner in Rockdale County early Monday, authorities said.
The incident happened just after 4 a.m. off Flat Shoals Road on White Oak Court in Conyers.. The sheriff’s office said the teens, two 16-year-old boys and a 15-year-old, were killed during an exchange of gunfire. It appears the teens were attempting to rob three people in the front yard, authorities said.
A neighbor described a Conyers residential shooting that left three teens dead as what sounded like a “home invasion gone bad for the invaders” in what the Rockdale County sheriff said could “possibly” be a Stand Your Ground or self-defense case.
Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said the three teens were wearing masks.
“When deputies arrived they did discover masks on the young men. Again, that rose our suspicion,” Levett said. “So now we are out in the communities, speaking with witnesses, speaking of course with the homeowner involved. And of course trying to identify the young men and notify their families.”
Rockdale County deputies were able to later determine that one of the attempted robbery suspects brandished a gun and fired shots at the residents, but one of the intended victims returned fire.
One of the teens was dead at the scene, while two were transported to a hospital where they later died.
Free speech and religious liberty are on a winning streak. Last month the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals ruled that Christian wedding photographers could not be compelled to use their artistic talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings.
Today, the Arizona Supreme Court reached a similar holding, this time on behalf of Christian calligraphers and painters Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski. The case, brought by my friends and former colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, is similar to multiple other wedding vendor cases.
The plaintiffs do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (they happily serve gay customers). They merely refuse to produce art that advances ideas they find objectionable.