DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Call for Gun Confiscation

By Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The liberal left Democrat Party narrative that "guns are bad, not the idiot behind the trigger, therefore all guns must be confiscated from law-abiding citizens" is becoming a deafening roar from the statists who use armed guards to protect them.

UN Leader, Al Hussein, Urges for More Robust Gun Control in U.S.–Like Paris, Where Terrorism NEVER Happens

The U.N. leader calling for more robust gun control in the United States, by the way, is Muslim.

"Why should any civilian anywhere be able to acquire an assault rifle or other high-powered weapons designed to kill lots of people?"

The Americans who fought the American Revolution will tell you so that we can defend against tyranny.  Every single instance of tyranny in history was supported by disarming the public so that they could not fight back.  That is the primary reason for the Second Amendment.

“Irresponsible pro-gun propaganda suggests that firearms make society safer, when all evidence points to the contrary.”

Wrong.  Good guys with guns always stop bad guys with guns.  Every single mass shooting in the United States in recent memory were committed in "gun-free zones" where the shooter knew that there would be no armed opposition.  Gun control disarms law-abiding citizens, not the criminal, terrorist, or government capable of becoming a tyranny.

“The ready availability of guns leaves little space between murderous impulses and actions that result in death. The journey between hate-filled beliefs and violent hate crimes is accelerated. Society — in particular its most vulnerable communities and minorities who are already facing widespread prejudice — pay a high price for the failure to stand up to the lobbyists and take the necessary measures to protect people from gun violence.”

The so-called minorities are filled with Islamic terrorists waiting to commit jihad against the United States.  Disarming the public assists the terrorists.  In Paris, where gun control is "robust," terrorism ravaged that city.  Sydney is another example.

Again, good guys with guns are what stops bad guys with guns.

Oh, and one more thing to Mr. Hussein: Don't mess with America's gun culture.  It's robust in this country for a reason. . . and that reason is "Liberty."

According to World Net Daily, The Obama administration has tried repeatedly to push more gun control through Congress, unsuccessfully. It still is trying its hand at a strategy of simply depriving people of their Second Amendment rights.

Now it is signaling a new method, claiming that “gun control” is “part and parcel” of the federal government’s responsibility for homeland security.

It was presented by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson during an appearance on CBS, when he made the claim no less than three or four times that gun control is now “part and parcel” of his agency’s responsibilities.

“I do believe,” he said, “that meanginful, responsible gun control is now part and parcel of homeland security.”

He continued, “It’s critical to public safety. We have to face the fact that meaningful, responsible gun control has to be part of Homeland Security. It’s coming I think the American public has to face.”

Remember: All tryanny must do to control the people is make it so that the people are unable to fight back against tyranny.

NYTimes Editorial: Congress Should Secretly Suspend Second Amendment Rights

The New York Times editorial is advocating for the federal government to use the courts to violate the Second Amendment.  The Constitution was written to create a federal government to serve the States and the People, not control them.  The words "shall not be infringed" in the Second Amendment is non-negotiable.  On top of that, the courts do not have the constitutional authority to use rulings and opinions to alter the U.S. Constitution, or the laws of the United States.  The Constitution can only be changed by amendment as per the process provided in Article V., and due to the concept of Separation of Powers, only the legislature can alter, modify, create, or repeal law.

The New York Times is calling for the disarmament of Americans in response to the Orlando terror attack that left 50 dead including the shooter and 53 wounded at a gay nightclub.

Not only is what the Times is calling for illegal and unconstitutional, but such a move would open up the opportunity for the federal government to take on an even more tyrannical role in our lives.  Historically, what the Times is calling for is disastrous, and always ends in death, collapse, and a totalitarian governmental system.

 According to All News Pipeline, the gun control rhetoric, violence at Trump rallies, and the likely massive civil unrest at both the Democratic and Republican Conventions and 'planned chaos' throughout the nation, will play right into the Democrat Party's plan to end elections, and institute martial law.  Could Barack Obama be the final American President?

According to writer Stefan Stanford, the Democrats plan to declare a state of emergency and "postpone" the 2016 general election. 

"Due to the massive unrest that breaks out all across the country, Barack Obama will stay in office for another 2 years until law and order can be restored and another presidential election scheduled and (s)election held. By that point in time, the globalists have maneuvered two of their own candidates into position. Martial law is declared nationwide."

Is that possible?

Twitter account of one of the leaders of Black Lives Matter, Deray McKesson, was hacked according to this story from the Baltimore Sun. The message gained from that?  There was a series of direct message conversations between McKesson and another leader of Black Lives Matter, Johnetta Elzie.  The conversations have been made public.  BLM is working with those inside the Obama administration to stop the November election.

Why would anyone push for martial law? Is it even constitutional for a president to do that?  Doesn't Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution authorize only Congress and the State governments to call up the militia?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but the reality is that the Democrats may consider going for broke.  They are using rioting, lies through the media at a level that has been kicked up a few notches, working with the Islamist enemy, and 'orchestrated terrorism' to position themselves, and to attempt to silence all opposition to them.  That's why there are paid protesters rioting throughout the United States.  They've trained an army of Millennials, and they may believe the iron is hot to strike.

Prepare, and be armed.  It may get rocky.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: