Hillary: ‘I’m Not Here To Take Away Your Guns’ – But She Will

gun-control
Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 29, 2016

Hillary Clinton at her DNC speech: “I’m not here to take away your guns” …   Hillary Clinton wants you to know one thing about her position on gun control: “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns.”  She elaborated further on her comments, which she made at her Democratic National Convention speech accepting the presidential nomination: “I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.” –Vox

During her acceptance speech, see above, Hillary said she wasn’t going to take away guns in the US, but this is untrue.

She knows just how to do it.

First of all, she will make guns more expensive with new back ground checks.

Second, she will make guns manufacturers liable for selling guns that later are used in crimes.

But that is just the beginning.

Hillary doesn’t actually believe that people in the US should have guns.

In a Fox post HERE entitled, “Four ways Hillary Clinton will work to end gun ownership as president,” John Lott points out that in an appearance on ABC, Hillary would not say whether citizens had a constitutional right to own guns.

George Stephanopoulos pushed Clinton twice on whether people have a right to own guns on ABC News’ “This Week”:

“But that’s not what I asked.  I said do you believe that their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?”

Clinton could only say: “If it is a constitutional right…”

Clinton like other gun opponents, believes an overabundance of guns are responsible for the shootings that take place in the US, especially in mass shootings.

But there are many questions about these mass shootings.

David Steele, second-highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence and former CIA clandestine services case officer, has said this HERE:

“Most terrorists are false flag terrorists, or are created by our own security services. In the United States, every single terrorist incident we have had has been a false flag, or has been an informant pushed on by the FBI. In fact, we now have citizens taking out restraining orders against FBI informants that are trying to incite terrorism. We’ve become a lunatic asylum.”

Such FBI involvement leads one to ask whether there are forces in and behind the US government that are manufacturing violence in order to justify continued anti-gun agitation.

Authoritarian governments and those who back them don’t want people to have guns because without guns, it is much easier to force people to obey. When people are not armed, genocide becomes a more viable and convenient option.

Government killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century. The 21st century may equally bloody, especially if guns continue to be confiscated.

In the US, many citizens have fought back against gun confiscation.  But if Hillary wins the presidency, discussions about gun control will become moot.

Guns will be confiscated. Lott explains it this way:

Until 2008, Washington, D.C., had a complete handgun ban. It was also a felony to put a bullet in the chamber of a gun. In effect, this was a complete ban on guns. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down these laws.

But the constituency of the Supreme Court is changing. Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Bill Clinton appointees. Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by Obama as was Elana Kagan.

“If Hillary wins in November, she will appoint [Antonin] Scalia’s successor and the Supreme Court will overturn the Heller decision.  Make no mistake about it, gun bans will return.”

Only one more appointee is needed.

Conclusion: Hillary herself will not have to “pull the trigger” on gun confiscations. She will let the Supreme Court do it for her.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

Advertisements

Media’s Fevered Rhetoric Aimed At Gun Confiscation

guncontrol2

Source: TheDailyBell.com
July 9, 2016

The Horrific, Predictable Result Of A Widely Armed Citizenry …  The killings in Dallas are one more reminder that guns are central, not accessory, to the American plague of violence … They are central now, when the increased fetishism of guns and carrying guns has made such horrors as last night’s not merely predictable but unsurprising. The one thing we can be sure of, after we have mourned the last massacre, is that there will be another. –The New Yorker

Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker is very upset about people carrying guns. He makes the standard arguments, but the post is unusual for its vituperation.

Gopnik, in fact, has authored a number of shrill, anti-gun articles over the years. But we’ve noticed, generally, that media-based anti-gun arguments are growing louder – as if rising decibel level will make up for lagging logic.

Often when a drastic legislative decision is taken, the mainstream media, or parts of it, seem alerted in advance.

It is speculative, therefore, but not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the current rhetoric is laying the groundwork for yet another legislative or executive confiscatory effort.

Yes, President Barack Obama may want at least one more dysfunctional and ruinous, broad-based executive action to punctuate his term in office.

His party is already cooperating. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has authored a bill banning gun purchases for anyone on Homeland’s no-fly list.

In June after the Orlando attack, President Obama top spokesman said Obama was not ruling out executive actions regarding gun confiscation

“The president has taken substantial executive actions using as much executive authority as he can,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. “I’m not going to rule out additional steps … he’s not going to hesitate to act.”

Obama’s initial statements regarding the Dallas shootings weren’t focused on the shooters but dealt with the weapons themselves.

In media interviews, Hillary Clinton reinforced the point:  “We did have an assault-weapons ban for 10 years,” Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “I think it should be reinstated.”

Not long ago, Vox Media writer Dylan Matthews tweeted for President Obama to “unilaterally” remove guns.

“This is not Dems‘ sales pitch but I’m totally down with letting the prez unilaterally ban people (hopefully everyone!) from buying guns,” Mr. Matthews tweeted.

Here’s some more from The New Yorker:

… Weapons empower extremes. Allowing members of any fringe of any movement to get their hands on military weapons guarantees that any normal dispute—political or, for that matter, domestic—can quickly lead to a massacre.

Our guns have outraced our restrictions, but not our imaginations. Sometime in the not-too-distant past, annihilation replaced street theatre and demonstrations as the central possibility of the enraged American imagination.

The article restates the point in several ways, and at one point indicates that those who support concealed-carry rights “guarantee that the murders will continue.”

The article finishes: “The country is now clearly divided among those who want the killings and violence to stop and those who don’t. In the words of the old activist song, which side are you on? “

Apparently Gopnik has forgotten that governments killed hundreds of millions in the 20th century alone. Had those people access to weapons, they might have been able to defend themselves.

What’s interesting about the latest New Yorker rhetoric, is that it seems to expand the groups of people who should not be allowed guns to “members of any fringe of any movement.”

Since Homeland Security considers people who believe in the US Constitution to be operating on the “fringe,”  this statement may signal an entirely new frontier of potential gun confiscation.

Conclusion: In any event, the media agitation seems to be rising and that may indeed signal that there are more definitive executive or legislative actions on the proverbial horizon.

Read More At: DailyBell.com

Sudden Change Strip Veteran’s Access To Medical Marijuana

marijuana law
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
June 29, 2016

A lot of times, if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. That was the case with a proposal that would have let doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prescribe medical marijuana to veterans.

It looked like the proposal was close to becoming law, but Congress removed it at the last minute from the VA’s annual budget.

The legislation, which had been sponsored by Oregon lawmakers, had cleared the House and Senate but was axed on June 22 during final closed-door negotiations. Had it passed, the bill would have cleared the way for the VA to recommend medical cannabis to patients in states where it has been legalized.

In a joint statement released June 24, Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Sen. Jeff Merkley, both Democrats from Oregon, said it was “outrageous” that the proposal was pulled from the bill.

They added:

“To add insult to injury, the legislation was released in the middle of the night, not even giving members of the House an opportunity to review the language before voting on it.”

House Republicans brought the stripped version of the bill up for vote on the night of June 23 while attention was focused on the Democrats’ sit-in for gun control legislation.

Sick-PTSD-Infographic

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

Gun Control Aims to Disarm the People, Not Save Lives

gun-control
Source: TheDailyBell.com
May 17, 2016

It’s impossible, in this day and age, to pick up a stranger’s password-protected mobile phone and send a text. It’s easy to steal anyone’s gun and fire away … So President Barack Obama wants the government to assist in the development of smart-gun technology, which has the potential to reduce the number of preventable deaths.  – Bloomberg

Obama’s is trying to control guns again. And this is the proximate cause for articles like this Bloomberg opinion piece about how necessary it is to stop gun violence by any means necessary.

But the larger issue is one that is not often pointed out.

It is actually quite unbelievable that this incessant effort to make guns more difficult to use is entirely motivated by well-meaning individuals  who want to protect our loved ones from deadly weapons.

Anyone who has had even occasional interactions with US governments at state or federal levels – especially on the East or West coasts – is well aware of the bureaucratic rigidity.

Whether it is the prosecution of military conflict around the world, the imposition of questionable taxes domestically, adult sentences for juveniles or prisoners placed in solitary confinement for years or decades, the vast scope of the US empire renders it essentially uncaring.

It is hard to conceive of bureaucracies being caring anyway. Cultures tend to be caring, but not sociopolitical entities.

Nonetheless, this Bloomberg article makes the argument that gun legislation is being promoted entirely out of caring and concern.

The need is great. At least 278 children unintentionally killed or injured someone with a gun last year, and at least 84 have done so already in 2016. Additional suicides and murders have been committed by people using guns that did not belong to them.

This effort could soon move beyond courts and legislation. All that stands in the way for now is the California federal appeals court ruling.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the California federal appeals court will rule at any moment “on whether states can force firearm manufacturers to incorporate safety devices in their products.”

If it makes a favorable ruling to states, then expect to see a surge of gun control technology that will make it more and more difficult to operate guns.

States – pursuant to the ruling – could mandate that one has to wear a ring that facilitates the firing of a gun at close proximity. No ring, no operation.

Continue Reading At: TheDailyBell.com