Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

Rick Nolan has a constitutional problem that can’t be solved. It isn’t that he’s done anything impeachable. It’s that he’s pretzeled himself into an impossible situation to squirm out of. In trying to sound reasonable on the Second Amendment and on terrorists, Nolan’s campaign manager said “suspected terrorists — those who aren’t allowed to fly on a plane with Americans — should not be allowed to purchase dangerous weapons.” The flaw — the gaping inconsistency, actually — with that statement is that there are lots of people on those no-fly lists who’ve done nothing that authorizes the federal government from stripping a person’s right to protect him- or herself.

This is where I often cite the fact that Steve Hayes and the late Sen. Ted Kennedy were accidentally on those no-fly lists and were constantly searched before boarding a plane. Think about the possibility of Ted Kennedy being put on the federal government’s watch list as a potential terrorist. I wasn’t crazy about Sen. Kennedy’s political beliefs but he certainly didn’t do anything to prevent him from protecting his family.

I’d love hearing Rep. Nolan explain what Sen. Kennedy did that would’ve justified the federal government telling him that he couldn’t protect his family in an emergency. I’d love hearing Rep. Nolan explain why Steve Hayes, who hasn’t committed any felonies, should be stripped of his God-given right to protect his family, especially without being afforded his due process rights.

It’s one thing if a person is taken to court to take their gun away because someone accused them of being a risk to themselves or others. That court would weight the evidence, apply the applicable laws, then render a verdict. In that instance, there’d be a finding of fact. There’d be the application of applicable laws and a trial before a judge or a jury of their peers.

If Nolan got his way, the person getting stripped of their right to protect their family would lose their rights because they government said that they couldn’t own a gun. They wouldn’t get an explanation. They wouldn’t’ be tried by their peers. Steve Hayes and Ted Kennedy, theoretically speaking, would’ve lost their rights because of a bureaucrat’s mistake.

Talk about the ultimate civil rights violation. It doesn’t get more egregious than that. Check this out, too:

Here’s the transcript from Mills’ ad:

NARRATOR: On the Second Amendment, there’s a clear choice. Rick Nolan has voted repeatedly to take away our rights, earning a failing grade from the NRA. Stewart Mills will protect our rights.
STEWART MILLS: I’m a lifelong hunter committed to our Minnesota way of life, but the Second Amendment is about more than recreation. First and foremost it’s about protecting our liberties and families. I’m Stewart Mills and I approve this message because I’ll defend the Second Amendment – always.

Here’s what Joe Radinovich, Nolan’s campaign manager, said in response to the ad:

“As an avid sportsman and hunter, Congressman Nolan has always supported responsible gun ownership, almost never misses a hunting opener, and any insinuation that he’s somehow ‘against’ the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous.”

It’s clear that Mr. Radinovich’s understanding of the Second Amendment is as limited as Mr. Nolan’s understanding of it.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Democratic Party has waged a war against straightforward speech for decades. They aren’t pro-abortion. They’re pro-choice. They aren’t anti-gun. They’re for gun control. They aren’t pro-terrorist. They’re just opposed to racial and religious profiling. They aren’t big spenders. They’re pro-government ‘investment’. They aren’t the party of tax increases. They’re the party that favors the one-percent paying their fair share. They aren’t anti-fossil fuel. They’re pro-green energy. They aren’t pro-oppressive regulation. They’re for ‘common-sense regulations’.

Pardon my French but that’s BS. Democrats are pro-euphemism because that’s the only way their ideas sound palatable. If they didn’t spin what they’re for, they’d never win another election throughout eternity. At minimum, they’d get their butts kicked each year if they couldn’t hide their real identity.

The truth is that today’s Democratic Party is a collection of lunatics that don’t care about national security or our Constitution. The proof of that is the legislation that they pushed and the faux sit-in they staged. I wrote this article to highlight Hawaii’s disgust with the Constitution. Their governor just signed a bill that requires Hawaiians who buy a gun in Hawaii to register that gun, which then requires law enforcement to put all gun owners on the FBI’s criminal watch list. The bill blatantly thumbs its nose at the constitutional principles of due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The Democrats’ fundraising rally on the House floor shows that Democrats aren’t serious about protecting our nation from terrorists. Democrats put a higher priority on playing word games to achieve their goal of controlling people.

The Democratic Party of Hubert Humphrey, Pat Moynihan and JFK had a healthy libertarian streak to it. The Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi is defined by its fascist and authoritarian tendencies.

Today’s Democratic Party isn’t anything like the Democratic Party of 25 years ago, much less like the Democratic Party of JFK. It’s a shame. We could use that party again.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments sections of newspapers frequently look like a bad stretch of Twitter. Still, they’re often instructive of what people think on issues. In some instances, they’re proof that people don’t think. The comment section of this thoughtful LTE is quite instructive.

One commenter said “If a gun is just a tool, why do some people insist on having one on them 24/7? What sort of work requires a civilian to have that kind of a tool? Surely you don’t need a tool that is as efficient at killing and wounding as the one the Orlando shooter used.”

First, this commenter wasn’t alone in thinking that. Next, the obvious answer is that it’s important to have a gun with you 24/7 because terrorists and violent criminals don’t make appointments with their victims. Third, why shouldn’t civilians be prepared to protect themselves and their families 24/7? It isn’t like there’s an acceptable time to let your family get attacked.

Another commenter said “In one of his calls to action for Congress after the shooting in San Bernardino, California, President Barack Obama urged lawmakers to pass legislation preventing suspected terrorists on the no-fly list from buying guns.” Let’s amend that statement so that it’s accurate. If we made that correction, here’s what it would say:

In one of his calls to action for Congress after the shooting in San Bernardino, California, President Barack Obama urged lawmakers to pass legislation preventing suspected terrorists and innocent civilians who’ve done nothing wrong on the no-fly list from buying guns.

The thing Democrats reflexively leave out of their propaganda is the fact that famous people who haven’t committed a crime are on that federal no-fly list. Should people have their constitutional rights trampled based on speculation?

I just wrote this article to highlight a bill that Hawaii’s governor just signed into law. Here’s what you need to know about the bill:

Hawaii has become the first U.S. state to place firearm owners on the FBI’s Rap Back, which until now was used to monitor criminal activities by individuals under investigation or people in positions of trust such as school teachers and daycare workers.

Let’s be clear about this. Everyone who buys a gun in Hawaii will be put on the FBI’s criminal watch list. Obviously, they haven’t committed a crime. If they had, they’d be denied the ability to purchase a gun in the first place.

Further, anyone bringing a gun to Hawaii from the mainland will be required to register their gun. When they leave, they are given the right to petition the FBI to be taken off the FBI’s criminal watch list.

Let’s be truthful. The goal of these laws isn’t to protect people. The goal of this type of legislation is to give government the ability to harass law-abiding citizens 24/7 for wanting to protect themselves and their families and for exercising their constitutional rights.

Let’s remember that the Constitution was written to essentially tell the government what it wasn’t allowed to do. This picture should tell us why we should reject the Democrats’ gun grab attempts:

Personally, I’ll pick free and safe over endangered and not free every time.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Rick Nolan isn’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier. I recall thinking that when he was my congressman back in the mid-1970s. Back then, constituents knew that he’d vote the way Democratic leadership told him to vote. Nothing’s changed in 40+ years. Yesterday, Nolan joined the Democrats’ gun control sit-in. When it was his time to speak, Nolan spoke of a bygone era that didn’t exist, saying “If anybody had a good idea in the form of a bill or an amendment, they got an opportunity to offer it, and have it debated and discussed. That rarely happens anymore.”

What’s changed in those 40+ years is that Democrats went from being a party brimming with ideas to being the party of identity politics. Democrats don’t provide solutions anymore. These days, Democrats offer legislation that appeases one of their special interest allies. This week, rather than offering President Obama advice on how to destroy ISIS, Democrats have staged a faux protest aimed at getting their special interest allies frothing at the mouth over gun control. Here’s Nolan at his fruitiest:

Rep. Nolan supplied one of the dumbest arguments in favor of gun control. It deserves to be enshrined in the House of Representatives’ Hall of Shame. Here’s what Rep. Nolan said:

“I represent rural communities in northeastern Minnesota. Everybody in my neighborhood has shotguns and deer rifles—including me,” Nolan said in the release. “I’m proud to strongly support the Second Amendment. But the fact is, when you’re out duck hunting, you can only have three shells in your gun. Why? To protect ducks! That’s right—we put limits on guns to protect ducks. So why can’t we do the same for our elementary schoolchildren? For our friends and neighbors in places of worship? For our families who want to catch a Friday night movie? For our LGBTQ community who just want to go out for some fun and dancing on a Saturday night? Surely they deserve the same concern and safety that we afford to ducks.”

That’s breathtakingly stupid. Either that or he’s being breathtakingly dishonest. The Second Amendment wasn’t ratified to give people the right to hunt. Comparing hunting regulations with constitutional protections is like comparing the newest power tools with this year’s beauty pageant contestants. One has nothing to do with the other. Let me explain.

Hunting regulations were put in place to maintain healthy populations of game animals so sportsmen could go hunting. They weren’t put in place, as Rep. Nolan said, “to protect ducks.” The no fly-no buy legislation that Democrats, including Rep. Nolan, support requires the suspension of Fifth Amendment’s due process protections. Those protections protect people from start to finish. The Democrats’ No Fly-No Buy legislation only offers due process ‘protection’ after the fact. That certainly wouldn’t meet constitutional muster.

This is a gift to Stewart Mills’ campaign. Mills lost to Nolan by 3,732 votes in 2014. If Rep. Nolan keeps saying stupid things like this, he’ll get pummeled.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Greg Gutfeld has a theory about Orlando. Unfortunately, it’s a depressing theory. The silver lining to society’s dark cloud is that it’s possible, albeit a longshot, to change things.

The turning point will happen when we answer some important questions in unison. Right now, we’re nowhere close to that point. Don’t think in-the-next-town-over distant. I’m thinking the-next-solar-system-over-then-hang-a-left distant. Gutfeld lays it out with this illustration: “We quarrel about the quarrel. We cannot agree on the fight. And therefore we cannot begin to fight. Instead, we are like that proverbial snake that devours its own tail. Except, we think it’s sushi. But it’s blowfish. You get the idea. We’re dead.”

Then Mr. Gutfeld applies that illustration to the horrific terrorist attack in Orlando, saying “How can America defeat ISIS if we have vocal factions believing that we are worse? How can we fight the enemy if a large portion of our population thinks an inanimate object, a gun, caused Orlando?”

Mr. Gutfeld’s logic is indisputable. Yesterday in the Senate, they debated 4 gun control bills. Each bill predictably failed on (more-or-less) party line votes. Last night, I wrote this article to highlight how ideologically blind the Left is about guns and terrorism. In the article, I quote Sen. Franken as saying “I will continue to do everything I can to disarm hate and get these measures passed into law despite today’s setback.” I reject Sen. Franken’s belief that he’s done everything he could to “disarm hate” because he hasn’t done a thing to annihilate ISIS. Greg Gutfeld has another illustration that might break the logjam:

As I said earlier, Dr. Gutfeld’s logic is indisputably correct. Therein lies the bigger problem. The first problem identified is an identification problem: was Orlando a gun problem or a terrorist problem? That’s the first problem but yesterday’s Senate votes expose the bigger problem. It’s impossible to persuade people who don’t apply logic in their decision-making. Picture this hypothetical conversation:

FBI Agent: Did the terrorist have a gun?
Night Club Witness: Al-Qa’ida is on the run. GM is alive but bin Laden is dead.
FBI Agent: Sir, the terrorist called 9-1-1 and pledged allegiance to ISIS.
Night Club Witness: We need more gun control laws.
FBI Agent (getting impatient): Sir, witnesses said the terrorist used an assault rifle. Can you confirm that?
Night Club Witness: The Religious Right is responsible for all the hate speech.
FBI Agent: Thanks for your time.

Here’s the next logical question for gun grabbers: What’s the right number of gun control laws to protect people? 1? 12? 123? What’s the right number of laws that would protect citizens from terrorists? This picture says it all:

As long as we have to deal with logic-resistant Democrats, we won’t be able to defeat ISIS.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

After watching Trump tank in the polls and after getting this news, it’s apparent that Trump is a disaster waiting to happen. When Hugh Hewitt, the most loyal GOP establishment talk show host on radio, said that Trump was a disaster waiting to happen, people noticed. (I’m surprised that Sean Hannity hasn’t ripped Hugh for not worshiping at The Donald’s altar but that’s another post for another time.)

NBC News is reporting that “Every single 2016 presidential TV ad currently airing in a battleground state is either from Hillary Clinton’s campaign or the Democratic outside groups supporting her. The opposition, by contrast, hasn’t spent a dime in these same battlegrounds, whether it’s Donald Trump’s campaign or Republican-leaning Super PACs.”

That’s just for starters. The NBC article continues, saying “So far in June, Clinton and the outside groups backing her have spent a total of $23.3 million on ads in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, according to ad-spending data from SMG Delta. Republicans have spent $0 in these same eight states.”

Add to that the fact that Trump doesn’t have a GOTV operation. Add to that the fact that Trump insists on alienating major parts of the GOP base. (Think Second Amendment activists, amongst others.)

The lesson delegates should learn ASAP is that dumping Trump at the Convention isn’t a movement. It’s imperative. If Trump is the nominee, Republicans will lose North Carolina for the second time in 3 elections. They’ll lose Florida, Virginia and Ohio for the third straight time.

It’s indisputable that Hillary is a terrible candidate. It’s equally indisputable that she’s at least smart enough to put together a quality GOTV operation. At this point, any talk that Trump can win isn’t based in reality. It’s outright foolishness.

Trump isn’t self-financing like he’d promised. He’s opening up the electoral map but only in the sense that he’s turning red states like Utah and North Carolina momentarily purple. It’s time to stop this insanity. It’s time to officially Dump Trump.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

The St. Cloud Times Editorial Board’s latest editorial could’ve been written by Moms Demand Action. The sad thing is that the Times is just as uninformed now as it was a year ago.

For instance, their chief recommendation is “Improving background checks. There are a variety of proposals in Congress that are reasonable. A good starting point is the long-proposed plan to require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows. Unfortunately, the Senate, the day after the San Bernardino shootings, rejected this proposal 50-48. It was the second failure of the measure. It also rejected 55-45 a proposal to prevent people on the terrorist watch list from being able to legally buy guns.”

First, the Times should read the existing laws. Sean Davis, the founder of The Federalist, did. Then he wrote this post demolishing the myths that the Times still perpetuates:

1) The ‘Gun Show Loophole’ Allows Anyone, Even Criminals, To Get Guns

In reality, the so-called “gun show loophole” is a myth. It does not exist. There is no loophole in federal law that specifically exempts gun show transactions from any other laws normally applied to gun sales. Not one.

If you purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee (FFL) regardless of the location of the transaction — a gun store, a gun show, a gun dealer’s car trunk, etc. — that FFL must confirm that you are legally allowed to purchase that gun. That means the FFL must either run a background check on you via the federal NICS database, or confirm that you have passed a background check by examining your state-issued concealed carry permit or your government-issued purchase permit. There are zero exceptions to this federal requirement.

If an individual purchases a gun across state lines, from an individual or FFL which resides in a different state than the buyer, the buyer must undergo a background check, and the sale must be processed by an FFL in the buyer’s home state.

Here’s a pointed question for the TEB (Times Editorial Board): Do we need multiple federal laws covering the same situation? Here’s another question for the TEB: Might it not be better if we just enforced the laws that already address these situations?

Further, I wrote this article to highlight the fact that the federal government failed to do what it’s supposed to do. It won’t do any good to write new laws if the federal government won’t consistently and efficiently enforce the laws on the books.

To be fair, the TEB did its liberal duty. It did what it’s expected to do. Unfortunately, according to chapter 1, verse 1 of the progressives’ gospel is to disseminate untruths frequently and consistently.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Apparently, Terri Bonoff thinks she’s a serious threat to defeating Erik Paulsen. She isn’t. Nonetheless, she’s pushing the DFL/DCCC meme that last week’s terrorist attack is a gun control issue. It isn’t. This tweet should be ridiculed. In that tweet, Ms. Bonoff said “Silence speaks louder than words. These members of Congress cannot defend their vote.” According to this article, Rep. Collin Peterson “joined most of his Republican colleagues earlier this week in voting to keep the House of Representatives from debating a bill to ban firearms sales to people on terrorist watch lists.”

What they did was vote against the government’s ability to strip people of their civil rights without due process. Ms. Bonoff apparently didn’t care about the truth. Apparently, she said that Paulsen’s vote proved that he was “putting party politics above public safety.” That’s frighteningly dishonest. Ms. Bonoff knows that the murderer was a terrorist. Ms. Bonoff knows that terrorists don’t obey the law. That’s why they’re called terrorists.

She’s the politician who can’t defend her position. Betty McCollum’s position is indefensible, too:

“I strongly support a ban on weapons purchases by people on terrorist watch lists and expanded background checks on weapons purchases made at gun shows, online or in other commercial transactions,” Fourth District Rep. Betty McCollum, a Democrat, said. “Both of these proposals will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Tragically, even these narrow measures will not pass this Congress. The National Rifle Association opposes every piece of legislation that protects our families and communities from gun violence. And the NRA controls this Congress and will obstruct and defeat any effort to fight gun violence.”

TRANSLATION: Rep. McCollum supports stripping law-abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms while also stripping them of their due process rights. In other words, she’s anti-Second Amendment and anti-Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment says “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

McCollum is full of it when she said “these proposals will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.” That’s something that’s impossible to prove. She’s also full of it when she said “The National Rifle Association opposes every piece of legislation that protects our families and communities from gun violence.” Since the Democrats’ proposals haven’t protected families and communities from gun violence, Rep. McCollum’s statement is, at best, unprovable, if not downright dishonest.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

If anyone thinks that hardline lefties care a bit about the truth, they need to rethink things. This propaganda piece isn’t just dishonest. It’s frightening in that ABM isn’t interested in fixing the problem.

Susie Merthan’s propaganda piece opens by saying “The Orlando shooting is a tragedy. Unfortunately, for now, it’s just the most recent example of the epidemic of gun violence in America.” First, let’s remember Merthan’s history. According to Merthan’s Twitter profile says that she’s the “Communications Director for @ABetterMN by way of @mnhouseDFL.” Trusting the DFL is foolish. Trusting the Thissen-led House DFL is the ultimate in foolishness in Minnesota. Trusting President Obama’s spin of the driving force behind the Orlando terrorist attack is the ultimate in stupidity in the United States.

I wrote this article to make a specific point. I closed the article by specifically admonishing President Obama. Before admonishing him, though, I highlighted the administration’s failures:

According to the CBS article, the “co-owner of a Florida gun store says his employees contacted law enforcement before the Orlando shooting after gunman Omar Mateen attempted to purchase body armor and ammunition.” Further, the article says that “Mateen asked for level 3 body armor, according to Abell, but was told the store didn’t carry it. He then made a phone call and spoke in Arabic before asking for bulk ammunition, but employees did not sell it to him.” Finally, the article quotes Robbie Abell, the co-owner of Lotus Gunworks, as saying “we contacted FBI direct” after Mateen left the store.

Then I highlighted a Washington Post article:

“On the day of his rampage at a gay nightclub, the Orlando shooter posted messages on Facebook pledging allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State and vowing that there would be more attacks in the coming days by the group in the United States.”

The indisputable truth is that the federal government didn’t connect the clearly visible dots. President Obama didn’t care. Like ABM, he’d picked his storyline and he wasn’t deviating from it:

“Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should meet these families and explain why that makes sense.”

Susie Merthan’s article read much the same way:

Gun violence in America too often includes hate crimes and acts of terrorism. Hate crimes and acts of terrorism in America too often involve the use of guns. Strengthening our gun safety laws and closing loopholes in the background check system will help prevent lethal hate crimes and acts of terrorism.

The first World Trade Center bombing used explosives. The terrorists used box cutters and airplanes to carry out 9/11. Richard Reid, the infamous ‘Shoe Bomber’, used explosives planted in his shoes in his attempted terrorist attack. The Times Square bomber used a car bomb.

President Obama and Ms. Merthan, should we ban shoes, box cutters, cars and airplanes? After all, they were used in the attempted commission of terrorist attacks, too.

Further, the gun laws that were already in place should’ve sufficed. They weren’t the problem. The federal government failed us. Why shouldn’t We The People be upset that the federal government didn’t do its job?

Our not-so-illustrious senator took to the Senate floor to babble about gun violence:

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Yesterday, President Obama threw a hissy fit at law-abiding citizens. It’s getting pretty difficult to listen to him, especially when he says “The notion that the answer to this tragedy would be to make sure that more people in a nightclub are similarly armed to the killer defies common sense. Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should meet these families and explain why that makes sense.”

It’s time for this incompetent community organizer to stop lecturing We The People. It’s time that he examined his terrorist-fighting policies. To hear President Obama put it, you’d think that the NRA killed 49 people in that Orlando night club. Newsflash to the community organizer: An ISIS-inspired terrorist killed those people.

While President Obama talks about shrinking the amount of territory that ISIS controls, the rate of terrorist attacks doesn’t decelerate. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out that shrinking ISIS-controlled land won’t stop ISIS. Thoroughly defeating ISIS is what’s required. That means shutting down their social media recruiting efforts. That means killing the entire leadership team in a short period of time. It requires a serious effort, something that’s been missing from this administration.

“If in fact we want to show the best of our humanity, then we’re all going to have to work together at every level of government across political lines to do more to stop killers who want to terrorize us,” Obama said.

What’s required is an administration committed to destroying ISIS. That isn’t something that politicians can do. That’s something only the Commander-in-chief can do. That isn’t something that President Obama has committed to. At this late stage in his administration, it won’t happen, either.

Technorati: , , , , , ,