Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Anti-Gun Democrat Proposes Banning Semi-Autos and Going After “Resisters”

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Don’t believe the smoke screen: the anti-gun agenda won’t rest until they’ve got your gun… READ MORE

swallwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The May 11, 2018 headline of the USA Today op-ed said it all. Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) last week advocated for legislation to ban an as-yet undetermined class of semi-automatic firearms and to “go after resisters” who refuse to relinquish their lawfully-acquired firearms. Lest anyone mistake his intentions, Swalwell followed up with a lengthy NBC News interview this week in which he made clear that his own proposal is a departure from prior gun bans that allowed those who obtained the firearms when they were lawful to keep them. Swalwell said that after thinking “about the different ways to address it … I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities.”

According to the NBC piece, Swalwell is modeling his own proposal on laws passed during the 1990s in Australia. The article then inaccurately states, “But while Australia comes up often in gun debates, almost no prominent figures have proposed national laws that would demand that gun owners turn in existing weapons en masse.”

The truth is that anyone who suggests the United States should adopt Australian-style gun control — a club that includes such infamous gun ban advocates as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — is by definition advocating for the forcible disarming of “resisters.” That, in fact, was the signature feature of the Australian approach.

The widespread disarming of Australian citizens occurred through a comprehensive scheme that proceeded as follows. What is no longer debatable, however, is the true agenda and ideology that lies behind the gun control project in America. It is the abolition of the right to gun ownership in America as we know it … “resisters” be damned.

First, the various political subdivisions within Australia unanimously agreed to a uniform ban on large categories of popular firearms. The ban was both retroactive and prospective.

Second, the government instituted “amnesty” periods, which allowed those who had previously acquired the newly-banned firearms lawfully to surrender them to the government for a fixed and nonnegotiable rate of compensation.

Third, and most importantly, anyone who refused to relinquish their formerly lawful property was to be treated as an armed criminal, with all the physical jeopardy and legal consequences that entails.

The Australian government also uses a “may-issue” licensing scheme for firearm acquisition, which among other things requires an applicant to show a “genuine reason” for needing the gun. Self-defense — which the U.S. Supreme Court considers the “central component” of America’s right to keep and bear arms – is not recognized under Australian law as a permissible reason for the acquisition, ownership, or use of a firearm.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, is completely foreign to and incompatible with America’s history, tradition, and rights of firearm ownership. Simply put, there is no reconciling Australian-style gun control with America’s Second Amendment, a fact which even some gun control advocates in their more candid moments are willing to admit.

If Swalwell has distinguished himself at all from other American advocates of the Australian approach, it’s because he is willing to be more forthcoming about the fact that it would turn millions of formerly law-abiding Americans into armed “criminals” with the stroke of a pen.

In his NBC interview, however, he tried to have it both ways.

First, he insisted:

I’m not proposing a roundup or confiscation. It would be like anything else that’s banned: If you’re caught with it there would be a steep penalty. Any fear of ATF agents going door to door to collect assault weapons is unfounded and not what is proposed here. They don’t go collecting drugs that are banned or any other substance or weapon that’s banned and I’m not proposing that here.

That, of course, is a lie. Law enforcement agents with enough probable cause that someone possesses drugs or other contraband to get a warrant absolutely do go after the contraband. Some might even say they are duty-bound to do so. A quick Internet search will show you what that looks like in the real world.

Anybody who illegally possesses a contraband firearm potentially risks the same treatment. Swalwell, who touts his credentials as a former prosecutor, surely knows that.

But when asked to elaborate about the “stiff penalties” that would supposedly ensure compliance with his scheme, Swalwell seemingly contradicted his no-confiscation stance, stating, “I’d want to first get the gun.”

To their credit, NBC asked Swalwell directly whether he was “prepared for some of the confrontations that might erupt from this,” adding, “You’re surely familiar with the slogan, ‘I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.’” Swalwell brushed aside the question, indicating that Parkland survivors who have been advocating for gun control have given him “courage” for resolute action.

The actions he is calling for, however, carry inherent risks of further unnecessary loss of innocent life.

But that is what the gun “debate” has come to in America, with at least one gun control advocate so emboldened that he’s openly willing to put violent confrontations on the table to advance the agenda.

Whether Rep. Swalwell is serious or whether he is just hoping to move the Overton Window on what is considered legitimate rhetoric in the realm of gun control policy is perhaps debatable.

What is no longer debatable, however, is the true agenda and ideology that lies behind the gun control project in America. It is the abolition of the right to gun ownership in America as we know it … “resisters” be damned.

Feds Use Local Police to Collect License Plate Info at Gun Shows

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Might want to park across the street… Privacy watchdog groups and firearms enthusiasts upset about spy tactics initiated by feds through local police.

gun show, privacy, wall street journal, license plate scan, police, ICE

A new report from the Wall Street Journal reveals that the federal government has on multiple occasions used local police departments to scan automobile license plates at gun shows. This has been done in an effort to collect and record information on gun show attendees.

The Journal reviewed a series of 2010 emails between the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) and police departments in Southern California, including one in Del Mar, near the Mexican border. In the emails, federal agents persuade local police to use license plate readers to randomly scan cars at local gun shows. The agency planned to cross-reference that data with cars crossing the Mexican border to find and prosecute gun smugglers.

And there’s more… According to the Journal, the emails indicated that this strategy could have been employed elsewhere around the country. ICE has no policy that dictates the use of license plate readers, and nothing would have kept them from continuing the practice from 2010 until now.

No shock: the report has upset both privacy watchdog groups and firearms enthusiasts. It clearly raises Constitutional questions, to say the least.

Erich Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, told the Journal that his group opposes such surveillance: “Information on law-abiding gun owners ends up getting recorded, stored, and registered, which is a violation of the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act and of the Second Amendment.”

What ICE doesn’t seem to realize is that, contrary to what the Clinton campaign would have us believe, gun shows are NOT hotbeds of criminal activity. According to an NIJ (National Institute of Justice, the research, development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice) study released in December 1997 (“Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities”), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. The vast majority of firearm sales at gun shows are being offered by federally-licensed gun dealers who must ensure that each customer passes a background check, which blocks firearms purchases by most known criminals as well as illegal immigrants. This is likely why, according to the Journal, “There is no indication the gun-show surveillance led to any arrests or investigative leads.”

No one familiar with gun shows would think to target attendees in an effort to locate criminals. Perhaps instead of invading the privacy of law-abiding gun show patrons, ICE should use its taxpayer dollars to target straw purchasers and criminals who steal firearms, both more likely sources of illegal guns than random gun show attendees.

What do you think?

The AR-15: Americans’ Best Defense Against Terror and Crime?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In this informative video, NRA News contributor Dom Raso, a former Navy SEAL and founder of Dynamis Alliance, reminds us that the AR-15 is the best defense against terror and crime — and he points out that banning AR-15s wouldn’t have prevented most of the recent terror attacks.

Raso also offers his common-sense solution to stemming the tide of terror: Law-abiding citizens prepared to deal with the imminent threats.

Raso highlight quote: “After the attack at Pulse night club in Orlando, Hillary Clinton looked past the obvious enemy — radical Islamic terror — and instead said ‘weapons of war have no place on our streets’ and that we need to ban AR-15s immediately. AR-15s are fine for Hillary and her family. They’ve been protected by armed guards who use them for three decades. But [for] average Americans who watch the news and feel genuine fear for their safety and their families’ safety — Hillary wants to deny them the level of protection she insists upon for herself.”

What did you think of Raso’s “Best Defense Against Terror” video?

Hillary Clinton Ducks and Weaves 2A Questions

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

During a recent interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Stephanopoulos asked her — directly — twice if the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. Her answer? Watch the video below, or read the attached  transcript:

Stephanopoulos: Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right, that it’s not linked to service in a militia?

Clinton: I think that for most of our history, there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice Scalia, and there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right, as we do with every amendment, to impose reasonable regulation.

So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment, and in fact what I have proposed is supported by 90 percent of the American people and more than 75 percent of responsible gun owners.

So that is exactly what I think is constitutionally permissible.

And once again, you have Donald Trump just making outright fabrications, accusing me of something that is absolutely untrue. But I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, closing the online loophole, closing the so-called Charleston loophole, reversing the bill that Senator Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done, and it is, in my view, consistent with the Constitution.

Stephanopoulos: And the Heller decision also does say there can be some restrictions. But that’s not what I asked. I said do you believe…their conclusion that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right?

Clinton: If it is a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulation. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms.

So I think it’s important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right—I have no objection to that. But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regularity, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

So, help us out. Did she answer the question?

Video: Is Hillary Agreeing that Gunowners are ‘Terrorists’?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Is Hillary Clinton nodding in approval as one of her supporters claims that gun and ammunition manufacturers “are making terrorists out of our citizens”? Click the video link below to watch the Democrat Presidential candidate’s reaction to an unbelievable smear of gun builders and gun consumers:

HILLARY ENDORSES OBAMA FOR SUPREME COURT SEAT

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

On the campaign trail recently, Hillary Clinton said she thinks it would be a “great idea” for Barack Obama to serve on the high court. The most recent Second Amendment cases at the U.S. Supreme Court have been decided by a 5-4 vote. Would a Justice Obama tip the ideological balance of SCOTUS against gun rights?