Archive for the ‘Gun Grabbers’ Category

This LTE contains its fair share of contradictions.. Perhaps, the biggest contradiction is the one found in this paragraph:

Imagine how we could lower gun deaths by requiring a license to purchase or use a gun! By requiring background checks for every gun sale? By limiting ammunition purchases? By making firearms inoperable by anyone except the original owner? This would stop killings by children and gun thieves. The National Rifle Association uses money to prevent Congress from passing such common-sense solutions, and — guess what — the NRA is funded by gun manufacturers. They would lose money if reasonable and constitutional limits were placed on weapons.

This is the ultimate contradiction in my estimation. How do you place restrictions on guns that pass constitutional muster? First, let’s start with the text of the Second Amendment:

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.

It’s important to notice why the Second Amendment was written — for “the security of a free state.” Further, it’s worth noting that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights said that it’s “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

The person apparently doesn’t know much about this subject because we already have a system of background checks. Some of the recent mass-shooters have shot people after passing background checks. The problem isn’t whether there should be background checks but whether these background checks should include mental health data or whether juvenile arrests should be wiped clean.

The talk about implementing “common sense solutions” is just that — talk. House Democrats don’t just want “common sense” restrictions. They want an assault weapons ban, red flag laws, etc. An assault weapons ban is worthless. If you specify which weapons are classified as assault weapons, it’s easy for the manufacturer to get around that. What they did with the initial assault weapons ban, a month after the ban went into effect, the manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new model wasn’t part of the list so it wasn’t classified as an assault weapon.

If the legislation defines assault weapon by caliber, muzzle velocity of the round, physical characteristic, etc., then the definition is too broad. In their Heller decision, the Supreme Court said that firearms “in common use” can’t be prohibited. That doesn’t stop Biden, Beto or Harris from wanting to confiscate guns:

Beto’s ‘Buyback’:

Sen. Harris’ executive order:

Democrats don’t want to pass “common sense” restrictions on guns. They want to confiscate our weapons. The people making these threats aren’t back-benchers. They’re the Democrats’ presidential candidates. Their fidelity to the Constitution is limited at best.

After reading Tina Smith’s quote in this article, it isn’t difficult to not trust Democrats when guns are concerned.

When asked if she thinks Congress would pass universal background checks this year or next, Smith is quoted as saying “I’m not optimistic. We’ve seen this cycle over and over again: concerns, promises to take action and then backtracking.”

Then there’s Angie Craig, another Democrat who sounded like an idiot when she said “The fact is most Americans support common-sense gun legislation. The only thing stopping it is the special interests that seem to have control over some politicians in Congress. I’m sick and tired of the NRA.” The article nots that “Craig supports universal background checks and banning what she called ‘military-style assault weapons.'”

What’s appalling is that neither Craig or Smith know the first thing about guns, yet they want to tell gun owners what they can’t do. As for Craig saying “I’m sick and tired of the NRA”, that shows how ignorant of who the NRA is. The NRA are people from all across the United States determined to prevent politicians from gutting the Second Amendment. Before people say that that’s conspiracy theory talk, I’ll show you a trio of Democrats running for president who support firearm confiscation:

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) told reporters in New Hampshire on Friday that mandatory buybacks were “a good idea.”

Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman from El Paso, spent the final weeks of August demanding mandatory buybacks of millions of assault rifles currently owned by law-abiding Americans. “All of them,” he tweeted defiantly.

Elizabeth Warren is the other Democrat presidential candidate who supports a mandatory confiscation of assault weapons.

Democrats love using the euphemism buyback instead of confiscation for obvious reasons. Confiscation is the right term. It’s impossible to buy something back that wasn’t your property previously. Since the government didn’t own the guns previously, it can’t buy them back. Democrats know this but that won’t prevent them from using that dishonest term repeatedly during this debate.

Here’s something to contemplate: if felons commit crimes, is it logical to violate law-abiding citizens’ Constitutional rights? Here’s another question worth pondering: will any of the Democrats’ solutions stop even 1 mass shooting? Thus far, the answer to that question is an emphatic no.

That’s because the Democrats aren’t looking at what’s caused mass casualties. With the Parkland shooting, the shooter told people that he was going to kill students. Rather than taking him seriously, the people running Marjorie Stoneman Douglas turned a blind eye towards the shooter. That was just a continuation of what they did earlier in his school career:

Cruz’s eighth-grade language arts teacher, Carrie Yon, kept diligent notes on his behavior for Cruz’s “Functional Behavior Analysis”:

Sept. 3: While reviewing [a] homophones worksheet, when another student mentioned the amendment that talks about ‘the right to bear arms’ Nick [sic] lit up when hearing the word that related to guns and shouted out “you mean like guns!” he was overly excited thinking that we were going to talk about guns. Nick later used his pencil as a gun … shooting around the classroom.

Then there’s this:

Yon provided her opinion for the “Functional Behavioral Analysis”:

“I feel strongly that Nikolas is a danger to the students and faculty at this school. I do not feel that he understands the difference between his violent video games and reality. He is constantly showing aggressive behavior and poor judgment. His drawing in class show violent acts (people shooting at each other) or creepy sexual pictures (dogs with large penises) … I would like to see him sent to a facility that is more prepared and has the proper setting to deal with this type of child.”

That doesn’t include talking about the other government failures prior to Cruz’s Valentine’s Day massacre. Those things don’t fit into the Democrats’ narrative so they’re ignored. The Democrats’ constant focus is on things that won’t stop these shootings. Democrats only want things that are ineffective or are marginally effective. For instance, the 1994 assault weapons ban didn’t prevent a single mass shooting.

Until Democrats study what’s causing these shootings and become interested in connecting the dots with the people pulling the triggers, I’ll remain skeptical of the Democrats’ gun-grabbing plans.

This SCTimes Our View Editorial is a total cheap shot on their behalf. They start their editorial by saying “If it seems like we just wrote about this a few weeks ago, it’s because we did. Following the back-to-back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, that left more than 30 people dead and dozens more injured at the beginning of August, we (as well as millions of Americans) called upon lawmakers to enact common-sense regulations to help reduce these horrifying events. And as you likely know, nothing was done.”

That’s bad enough. Still, it’s infinitely worse when they said “Then, on Aug. 31, another mass shooting occurred in Odessa and Midland, Texas. Eight people, including the shooter, were killed and 25 people, including three police officers, were injured.”

The obvious inference was that Congress had dropped the ball by not coming back early from their annual August recess and immediately passing gun control legislation. I’d love hearing the SCTimes explain what they’d recommend. Here’s what they said:

And again, as we said earlier this month, it’s time for our elected officials to try some common-sense rules when it comes to guns:

  1. Require background checks for all gun purchases online and at gun shows.
  2. Do more to regulate high-capacity weapons, like in-depth background checks, mandatory training and even liability insurance.
  3. Ramp up resources for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms so that gun sellers are reviewed more often and with more scrutiny.
  4. Fully fund comprehensive mental health care. More resources for mental health care could help prevent mass shootings.

I’d love hearing the Times explain what they’d do when they ran into things like priorities like preserving doctor-patient confidentiality statutes. Is the Times recommending the erosion of another our rights? Or is it that they just didn’t think this through?

This is an unbelievably complicated issue. What’s worse is the fact that we’re dealing with protecting our civil liberties (the Second Amendment and HIPAA protections) while attempting to protect people from suicidal maniacs. Trying to do that when everything is calm is difficult enough. Doing that while everyone is looking over our politicians’ shoulders expecting them to pull a miracle out of their hat at the snap of their fingers. Good luck with that. This video, mostly featuring Sleepy Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, exposes the Democrats:

In the video, Sen. Warren said “Today, if it’s an average day in America, 7 children and teenagers will die from gun violence. Won’t make headlines, most of them. It’ll happen in neighborhoods that won’t get covered in the news. It’ll fall particularly hard in neighborhoods of color.” Later in the video, she chalks this up to corruption. I’d agree with that. The Democrat media isn’t interested in highlighting gang violence in Chicago. It happens virtually every weekend. That doesn’t get covered. The Democrat MSM won’t cover it because it doesn’t fit the Democrats’ narrative.

It used to be that the TV motto was “If it bleeds, it leads.” That’s ancient history now. Today’s motto is more like ‘We don’t cover it if it doesn’t fit the Democrats’ narrative du jour’. It isn’t brief or catchy but it’s the truth. If a story blows the Democrats’ narrative apart, it won’t get covered. I didn’t mean it might not get covered. I said it won’t get covered. But I digress. Back to the Times’ Our View Editorial.

It’s disgusting that the Times says nothing has gotten done. They know that it’s a complex issue. The Times (and the Democrats) know that this is an issue that can’t be fixed through demagoguery.

The only thing that demagoguery will do is drive the 2 sides further apart. The Republicans, for the most part, have acted like adults. They’ve talked about the limitations Congress has thanks to the Second Amendment and the Heller Decision. You can’t wish those away. You can’t ignore HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) rules out of existence.

What can be done is make sure that shooters don’t get ignored like they were at Parkland. That was totally preventable but we don’t talk about that because that hurts the Democrats’ narrative. Also, the Democrats don’t want people to notice that deputies acted like cowards and the sheriff pinned the blame on the NRA instead of on himself and his deputies.

There are steps that will make us safer. Unfortunately, Democrats have insisted that they don’t work or they don’t like guns in schools.

When I heard about Joe Biden talking about “magazines that hold multiple bullets”, I immediately recoiled at Mr. Biden’s stupidity on the subject of guns. How utterly stupid can Democrats get on this issue?

First, a person that doesn’t know that there’s a difference between a cartridge and a bullet shouldn’t have the right to lecture people about gun safety. A bullet is the projectile put in the neck of a shell casing after the gun powder and the primer. Put all these together and you have the potential for a lethal outcome. A bullet by itself isn’t lethal. Period.

Biden isn’t the only Democrat that doesn’t know the first thing about guns. Others that talk about banning assault weapons also show their ignorance. The term assault weapon is a euphemism used by gun-grabbing Democrats to instill fear into others. It’s been said before but I’ll repeat it again. An assault weapon is nothing more than a scary-looking semi-automatic rifle. It isn’t the least bit more lethal than any other semi-automatic rifle.

Banning assault weapons haven’t caused gun deaths to drop. Yes, I’ve seen the statistics of gun violence dropping during the assault weapons ban. It’s meaningless. When the assault weapons ban went into effect, the legislation specified which brands and models of rifles were considered assault weapons. By the time the ban went into effect, gun manufacturers changed the model numbers. The new models weren’t part of the ban so they were legal.

The problem with banning assault weapons based on physical characteristics is that it leads to a slippery slope that’s unconstitutional. For instance, it’s impossible to ban all semi-automatic rifles because, according to the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, which I wrote about here, states emphatically:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

Here’s Biden trying to score political points while he doesn’t realize how foolish he sounds:

If we want to reduce gun violence, then it’s imperative that only people who know what they’re talking about should be allowed to pontificate on the matter. It’s time that we only let people who know what they’re talking about work on gun control and/or gun rights issues. Those that can only recite the lobbyists’ chanting points should be utterly ridiculed.

Icicles must be forming in hell because Ted Cruz will meet with Alyssa Milano in Sen. Cruz’s Senate office to discuss gun control and the Bible in the spirit of I Peter 4:8. For those not familiar with that verse (I wasn’t), it says “And above all things have fervent love for one another, for ‘love will cover a multitude of sins.'” Here’s my sincere prayer that that’s the spirit that this political odd couple will meet.

This all started when Miss Milano initially tweeted “I’d love to come in and meet with you on the gun issue and many other issues that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, @tedcruz and also, 1 Peter 4:8. I’ll be in DC next week. We can live-stream the meeting so the American people can hear your bullshit 1st hand.” Cruz then replied, saying “I’d be happy to sit down & visit next week about uniting to stop gun violence & about the Constitution. If we can have a civil & positive conversation—in the spirit of 1 Peter 4:8 as you suggest—despite our political differences, that might help resolve the discord in our Nation.”

I don’t doubt Sen. Cruz’s sincerity. He’s a solid Christian man who isn’t afraid of a debate. Since he’s said that he wants to have a conversation “in the spirit of I Peter 4:8,” then I’ll accept that as Sen. Cruz’s intent. What’s interesting is Miss Milano’s reply:


Sen. Cruz’s reply might’ve surprised Miss Milano:


There’s more to Sen. Cruz’s reply, which I’d recommend everyone read, but you get the picture. Nonetheless, Miss Milano replied thusly:


This should be interesting. I’d love it if all of the cable networks covered it live. If they did, I’m betting that they’d get monstrous ratings. I’d be surprised if each network couldn’t find a major sponsor to allow them to cover the discussion/debate without interruption.

Perhaps, this odd couple might even do something positive that would help break the partisan logjam on this and other issues.

Perhaps the more accurate title of this post should be ‘When will Leftists protest these civil rights’? FIRE’s Susan Kruth’s article on Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s revised regulations outlines changes to Obama administration’s anti-due process regulations.

Let’s be clear. The Obama administration’s Education Department was anti-civil rights. When it came to dealing with alleged sexual assault on campus, the Obama administration’s Education Department “encouraged schools to have a single investigator adjudicate sexual misconduct cases through a series of separate meetings with the parties and witnesses.” By contrast, the DeVos-proposed regulations pertaining to alleged sexual assault “requires that schools ‘must provide for a live hearing’ when adjudicating a case.”

In other words, universities must allow a cross-examination of the accuser. Nameless, faceless accusers won’t have their ‘day in court’. Kruth continues with this:

Having a live hearing ensures that all parties can see exactly the same evidence and testimony that the fact-finder is seeing, so that he or she can rebut that evidence and testimony as fully as he or she is able.

The department’s new rules go on to require a typical and critically important feature of live hearings: cross-examination of all witnesses, including the parties. The Supreme Court has called cross-examination the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth,” and it can be especially paramount in cases that hinge on witness testimony, as the Sixth Circuit emphasized just two months ago.

How an administration that swore an oath to uphold the Constitution can deprive people of this basic civil right is startling. Further, it’s time to admit that leftist Democrats are now fascists and/or anarchists. IF you think I’m kidding, check out Eric Swalwell’s proposal:

In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

Look at the mental gymnastics Rep. Swalwell employs to justify this confiscation:

You’re probably wondering what gun confiscation has to do with due process rights. That’s a fair question. They’re both part of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is a sacred right. I prefer referring to it as the right to protect myself and my family. It’s a natural right. The Supreme Court has called the right to due process and to confront your accuser the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.”

It isn’t supposition to say that Democrats have opposed the right to protect yourself and your family from burglars and criminals as vigorously as they’ve opposed the right of people to cross-examine their accusers. What other constitutional rights do Democrats want to sacrifice on the altar of political correctness?

Tim Walz just couldn’t resist the opportunity to play politics after the Tree of Life Synagogue shooting. After the shooting, Walz took to Twitter to say “As we learn more about what’s happened in Pittsburgh, my heart goes out to the victims, loved ones, first responders, and Jewish community at large. This is a pain that is all too familiar in America. We can and must take action to reduce gun violence in our communities.”

Does anyone seriously think he cares about the people killed by this gunman? I certainly don’t. This is just another attempt by Walz to curry favor with the gun grabber fringe in the DFL.


It’s clear that Tim Walz has gone from being a reliable vote for the NRA to being a reliable vote for Michael Bloomberg. He’s no longer a centrist. He’s a leftist. On Nov. 6, it’s time to retire Tim Walz, Tina Smith and Keith Ellison.

I don’t know why I used the question mark in the title but it’s there and I’m too lazy to change it this morning. But I digress. The point of this post is to highlight the DFL’s gubernatorial ticket’s utter hostility towards legal gun owners. This morning, the Gun Owners Caucus issued a fact sheet on the ‘Erin Squared’ ticket vis a vis gun control.

It started by saying “The battle lines couldn’t be more clear. This weekend, at their convention in Rochester, the DFL endorsed the most extreme anti-gun ticket we’ve seen in Minnesota. DFL-endorsed Governor candidate Erin Murphy, an anti-gun State Representative who is proud of her “F” rating from the NRA and the Caucus. She’s been hostile to gun owners from her very first term.”

It went downhill from there, which might lead people to wonder how it can go downhill from an F rating. Here’s how:

DFL-endorsed Lt. Governor candidate Erin Maye Quade, also an anti-gun State Representative who signed onto Linda Slocum’s egregious HF 3022 gun ban bill earlier this year only to later withdrawal calling it a clerical mistake. Her spouse is a former full-time employee at Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun Everytown activist organization.

Nothing says the DFL hates law-abiding gun owners better than an all-Metro, gun-hating ticket at the top of the ballot.

It still drops off from there:

DFL-endorsed Attorney General candidate Matt Peliken, an anti-gun attorney who has called for complete bans on many semi-automatic firearms under the guise of ‘gun safety’ legislation. He was introduced at the convention by the leader of the state-based anti-gun organization Protect Minnesota, Rev. Nancy Nord Bence.

How do you think these candidates make rural DFL voters feel on gun issues? With this much hostility towards law-abiding gun owners at the top of the DFL ticket, it’s difficult to picture enthusiasm for the DFL ticket.

Finally, check this statement out.

Saying that picking Erin Maye Quade is Erin Murphy’s first unforced mistake isn’t controversial outside the DFL. Since I’m not in the DFL, I’m not that worried what the DFL thinks. Frankly, I’m confident that I’ve got lots of company in thinking that.

Filling out Erin Maye Quade’s identity isn’t difficult. She’s admitted to organizing with Barack Obama in 2007-08. She’s led this year’s anti-gun protest at the Capitol. She’s from Apple Valley. Combining with Erin Murphy is natural since the DFL is the Metrocrat Party. Increasingly, to the DFL, life outside the Twin Cities Metro doesn’t exist. Increasingly, to the Metro DFL, people who want to protect their families are considered weird. If you don’t believe me, ask Lori Swanson how welcoming the DFL is to NRA members. Swanson led Matt Pelikan by 5 points after the first ballot. Shortly thereafter, the DFL endorsed Pelikan. After the first ballot, Pelikan dropped a neutron bomb in the convention center, telling everyone that — gasp! — the NRA had given Swanson an A rating. Within 15 minutes, Swanson withdrew.

Why would we think that an anti-mining, gun-grabbing, pro-single-payer health care ticket from the Twin Cities would attempt to represent rural Minnesota? That being said, I’m praying that this is the DFL ticket this November. Check out the last half of this video:

Quade first admits that she’s a first-term legislator. Next, she virtually admits that parents can’t afford child care. Perhaps, she should’ve told Gov. Dayton not to let several hundred million dollars leave the program as a result of fraud.

Nothing in Ms. Quade’s legislative history suggests that she’s prepared to be governor if, God forbid, Murphy is incapacitated. Then again, I question whether either of these women are interested in representing the people of rural Minnesota. I’m betting they won’t.

This ticket screams identity politics. This ticket doesn’t seem interested in representing all of Minnesota’s 87 counties. In the end, that’s why I think Murphy-Quade will get beat by Walz-Flanagan.

I just got off the phone with Mitch Berg, who told me that Erin Murphy has picked Erin Maye Quade to be the Lt. Gov. candidate on her ticket. I told Mitch that nothing says geographical and ideological balance like a pair of gun-grabbing Metrocrats that hate mining. BTW, you’ll want to read Mitch’s upcoming post to hear his perspective on this. Trust me when I tell you that he’s got a perspective that you won’t hear from the Twin Cities media.

Here’s a little background on EMQ: “Quade first rose to prominence in speaking out on sexual harassment at the State Capitol — a #MeToo movement that ultimately led to the resignation of two prominent state legislators. Quade also led a 24-hour sit-in on the floor of the State Capitol in April, calling for a vote on several gun control bills before the session’s end. Quade is the first openly LGBT candidate for statewide office on a ticket endorsed by a major party. At 32, she would also be one of the youngest people to serve in the office.”

In her first gubernatorial-level decision, Murphy failed miserably. The Lt. Gov. must be able to step in as governor if, God forbid, something happens to the governor. Erin Maye Quade fails that test:

Maye Quade is serving her first term in the House and previously worked for U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison doing constituent services and organizing for DFL campaigns. She is a lifelong resident of Apple Valley, where she lives with her wife, Alyse, who also organizes for the DFL Party.

Basically, she’s a high profile activist. What’s funny is that Murphy doesn’t admit that this ticket won’t be well-received outside the Twin Cities metro:


Here’s the thing: Erin Murphy hates farmers almost as much as she hates miners, loggers and gun owners. The thought that Murphy and Quade will appeal to more than 12% of rural voters statewide is ridiculous. I’ve got to think that the NRA is chomping at the bit to go after this ticket. In the Eighth, I’m betting that there are tons of DFLers that can’t wait to vote against this ticket. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if they vote for one of the GOP tickets.

Ken Martin won’t admit it but he’s got to be afraid of what this ticket would do to the DFL this November.