The Second Amendment Was Written To Defend Against Alyssa Milano and Beto O'Rourke Alike   Ian Haworth   Sep 16, 2019

Because of the emotionally-fueled efforts of cynical politicians such as Beto O’Rourke and ignorant celebrity activists such as Alyssa Milano, the subject of gun control is poised to become one of the central policy issues of the 2020 Presidential elections.

The tone of the arguments in favor of gun control proposed by both O’Rourke and Milano this week may seem diametrically opposed. However, they are both examples of the blind circular logic used to justify an authoritarian destruction of our unalienable rights, and stand as further irrefutable evidence of the crucial importance of the Second Amendment.

Speaking with Ted Cruz earlier this week, Alyssa Milano was joined by Fred Guttenberg and Ben Jackson as she aimed to convince the Texas Senator to support the expansion of gun control policies. When Cruz articulated the fear felt by many Americans regarding the demonstrated threat of gun confiscation, Alyssa Milano attempted to allay these concerns by applying the classic Leftist combination of presumed moral superiority and vague subjectivity.

READ ON

NYT Insider Reveals Who Drafted And Sent The Vile Tweet About Kavanaugh Beth Baumann  Posted: Sep 16, 2019

  

Source: AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File

After the New York Times published an excerpt from “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation," a book co-written by Times reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, a vile tweet was published on the Times' Opinion Twitter feed to promote the piece.

"Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed to her that she didn't belong at Yale in the first place," the now-deleted tweet read.

The Times deleted the tweet once they began receiving flak for what was said.

READ ON

I'm thinking...if all you gun owners don't want more restrictions or bans, you better get out and vote for TRUMP in november. or you'll likely have this immorall hag for your president...!!

Kamala Harris: I'll give Congress 100 days to pass gun laws.....CNN

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) pledged that, if elected president, she would take executive action to enact sweeping gun control measures if Congress fails to send comprehensive legislation to her desk in her first 100 days. #CNN #News

Read this over a few times....the El Paso shooters own MOTHER called the police...........and they didn't listen to her. The Dayton shooter threatened classmates with terroristic threats..again...NOBODY LISTENED..!!....Same with the Florida school shooting...NOBODY LISTENS..!!

I certainly don't like the idea of having a "RED FLAG LAW"....That would mean that ANY disgruntled friend or family member could call in and say"you are acting strangely and they know you have guns"....AND...they are afraid of you.....There goes you, and your guns and you'll probably play hell getting them returned. The ones that is that didn't WALK while they were in confiscation....!! GOOD LUCK WITH ALL OF THAT NONSENSE..!!!!! You think this couldn't happen to you ? WELL...IT DID TO ME, Even without having a "RED FLAG LAW"...!!

Here’s what Congress is considering doing on guns      Amber Phillips  
It’s got a tough needle to thread

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is one of the lead negotiators on gun legislation in Congress. (J. Scott Applewhite)

Confused about what new gun laws Congress is going to make after a summer of back-to-back mass shootings? So is Congress, apparently

There seems to be a political opening to do something to strengthen gun laws, but it’s got to hit the Goldilocks zone of not too conservative and not too liberal to pass the Democratic House and the Republican Senate and get signed into law by President Trump. And right now, no one seems to know what that just-right legislation is.

The most difficult task seems to be finding common ground on background checks, specifically enough common ground that a majority of senators — maybe even a supermajority if some conservatives in the Senate launch a filibuster — agree. Here are the most-talked about proposals and their factions:

READ MORE

A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to buy the rifle pictured. The semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.

This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.

About 400,000 of these were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these semi-auto rifles for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.

The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..

The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.

To summarize:

The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isnt new in any way.

The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.

The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.

Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Fix the things that have changed for the worse in the last 50 years.

Cause the rifle technology in question was here long before this insanity.

I found this interesting...

"In 1992, the United States welcomed 10 year old Ilhan Omar and her family into the United States. She was born in Somalia, one of the world's poorest countries, ruled by a Marxist Military Dictator.

She and her family fled a terrible Civil War, and ended up in a refugee camp in Kenya. She spent four years there, until America offered Asylum, and they settled in Minneapolis.

Omar's father drove a taxi at first, and then he got a job with the post office, the government.

Omar meanwhile, grew up free in the world's richest country, and with all the Bounty that implies. She went to a State University, and a few years later was elected a member of Congress. She was elected by voters who were proud to see an immigrant succeed.

Omar, at the age of 36, is now one of the most powerful women in America. It's an amazing story!

Only in America could this ever happened. Ilhan Omar has a lot to be thankful for!

But she isn't grateful. At all!

And after everything America has done for Omar, and her family, she hates this country more than ever!

In a recent piece in the Washington Post, a reporter puts it this way ...

"In Omar's version, America isn't the big-hearted country that saved her from a brutal war and a bleak refugee camp. It wasn't a meritocracy that helped her to attend college or vaulted her into Congress."

"Instead, it was the country that had failed to live up to its founding ideals, a place that had disappointed her and so many immigrants, refugees and minorities like her."

Omar isn't disappointed in America, she's enraged by it! Virtually every public statement she makes accuses Americans of bigotry and racism. This is an immoral country she says. She has undisguised contempt for the United States and its people.

That should worry you.

She is living proof that the way we practice immigration has become dangerous to this country. A system designed to strengthen America is instead undermining it. The people we try hardest to help, have come to hate us.

It's maybe our fault, for asking too little of our immigrants. We don't ask them to assimilate, so they never feel fully American.

Or maybe the problem is deeper than that, we're importing people from places whose values are antithetical to ours.

But there is a problem. And whatever the cause, this is not sustainable.

No country can import large numbers of people who hate it and expect to survive. The Romans were the last to try that with predictable results.

So be grateful for ilhan Omar, annoying as she is. She is a living fire alarm, a warning to the rest of us, that we better change our immigration system immediately. Or else.

Tucker Carlson

Two Reasons Why You Aren’t Hearing More About The Philadelphia Shooter

After all the news coverage recently for the two shooters in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, you think we would have been hearing a lot more about the shooter from the shooting in Philadelphia as well.

As it is, there are two reasons primarily as to why we’re not hearing more about this one in the media.

The first reason is that this was a black man and we all know that all mass shooters are crazy white men who are Trump supporters, right?

He also has a long criminal history as well. He’s been arrested about a dozen times since he was 18 years old and convicted six times on charges involving illegals possession of guns and aggravated assault.

Secondly, he was a Muslim. But not only was he a Muslim, but he was also a radical Muslim and attended a radical Islamic mosque.

Of course, the media can’t say those words and they wouldn’t want them to look bad anyway or get accused of being Islamophobes.

According to Clarion Project,

Maurice Hill, the criminal who wounded six police officers in a shootout in Philadelphia and was arrested after a seven-hour standoff, attended a radical mosque.

The mosque, called Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar, is known for preaching the Islamist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia referred to as “Wahhabism.”

Clarion Intelligence Network has been aware through its sources that the area where the shootings took place is known for trafficking in guns, drugs and counterfeit items. This criminal market has a strong Islamist element that includes extremist gangs.

Hill’s older sister said he “occasionally attended” an unnamed mosque, confirming initial reports from our sources that Hill is a Muslim. The sources do not yet have first-hand evidence of the shooter being personally involved in Islamist extremism.

Clarion Intel’s sources report that Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar is a Salafi mosque which follows the theocratic teachings of Saudi Arabia’s top Wahhabist scholars.

This man should be treated just like any other mass shooter and it shouldn’t matter if he’s black or white or any color in between, the media should treat everyone equally and stop dividing America.

frum WOODSTERMAN

ABOUT TIME.....!!!

Donald J. Trump
Can’t believe the Washington Post wrote a positive front page story, “Unity Issue Has Parties Pointing To Trump. GOP Goes All In, While Democrats Clash Over Ideology & Tactics. Mr. President, We Are With You The Entire Way. REPUBLICANS Have....Coalesced Around Trump.” Then, on top of it all, Kathleen Parker, of all people, wrote “In Case You Were Wondering, Trump Won The Debate.” True, but what is going on at the Washington Post? NOT Fake News!

IS THIS ROBERT FRANCIS O"ROURKE.....???

Good read & overview.

What Is Justice for McCabe? | National Review
The former deputy director’s FBI coddled Clinton and addled Trump. Now he seeks clemency . . . even as he sues the Justice Department.

Hillary Clinton checked every box for a violation of the Espionage Act. So much so that, in giving her a pass, the FBI figured it better couch her conduct as “extremely careless,” rather than “grossly negligent.” The latter description was stricken from an earlier draft of then-director James Comey’s remarks because it is, verbatim, the mental state the statute requires for a felony conviction. It wouldn’t do to have an “exoneration” statement read like a felony indictment.

In point of fact, the careless/negligent semantic game was a sideshow. Mrs. Clinton’s unlawful storage and transmission of classified information had been patently willful. In contemptuous violation of government standards, which she was bound not only to honor but to enforce as secretary of state, she systematically conducted her government business by private email, via a laughably unsecure homebrew server set-up. Her Obama administration allies stress that it was not her purpose to harm national security, but that was beside the point. The crime was mishandling classified information, and she committed it. And even if motive had mattered (it didn’t), her purpose was to conceal the interplay between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, and to avoid generating a paper trail as she prepared to run for president. No, that’s not as bad as trying to do national-security harm, but it’s condemnable all the same.

READ ON

Robert Francis O'Rourke......Where's my tacos...?

Why is Robert Francis O'Rourke not being called out for taking the name "Beto"..? A Mexican name. Does he want the people to think he is Mexican, so he might get the Hispanic vote ??

Elizabeth Warren tried that with the Indians....you see what that led to and where it got her. Just a nickname "Pocahontas"

"Beto" is about as Mexican as I am....Pure Irish/English

Robert Francis O'Rourke

Fact check: Could a President Beto O'Rourke confiscate assault weapons?    By Holmes Lybrand, CNN
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas has made his position on assault weapons crystal clear. "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," O'Rourke said during Thursday's Democratic presidential debate. "We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore."

© Win McNamee/Getty Images 
North America/Getty Images \
HOUSTON, TEXAS - SEPTEMBER 12:

To accomplish this, O'Rourke has proposed a mandatory confiscation of these guns whereby individuals would be compensated for their firearms.

Beyond the thorny politics of this proposal, it raises clear legal and logistical questions, including whether a president has the authority to confiscate people's guns.

Facts First: A president could not issue a blanket confiscation of so-called assault weapons, but they could work with Congress to pass such a law. Constitutionally speaking, that law would likely run into some significant legal trouble.

First, some basic facts. The National Rifle Association has estimated that there are somewhere between 8.5 million and 15 million assault rifles in the US, the organization told McClatchy in 2018. That's about 2% to 4% of all the estimated guns in the US, but it's unclear how many guns would ultimately fall under an assault weapons confiscation.

Part of that has to do with the fuzzy definition of what qualifies as an assault weapon, which can sometimes be based on cosmetic features like a folding stock or an additional handgrip on a rifle.

In 1994, assault weapons were banned from being manufactured but the law did not call for the confiscation of those already in private ownership. That assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and was not renewed under the George W. Bush administration.

O'Rourke's plan, however, not only would include a ban on all sales of so-called assault weapons but also would require owners to sell these guns to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, something the US government has never done before.

Because of precedent set by the Supreme Court, the widespread use and popularity of these guns would almost certainly present legal trouble for O'Rourke's proposal.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a ban on handgun possession in the home violated the Second Amendment. It found that it did, holding that the Second Amendment protects guns that are "in common use" and prohibits " 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' "

In response to questions about the constitutionality of his proposal, O'Rourke's campaign told CNN that the confiscation of AR-15-style weapons would be legal, and cited Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion from Heller, that the regulation of "dangerous [and] unusual weapons" does not violate the Second Amendment.

However, Scalia's opinion states that the Second Amendment protects guns in "common use." Given their prevalence, these assault weapons could fall under the definition of being "in common use," and therefore be protected by the Second Amendment.

At least one expert believes that common use interpretation would carry the day. "There's no dispute that these guns meet that definition," Dave Kopel, gun rights scholar and research director of the Independence Institute, told CNN.      

I don't think there was or is a "law" against blackface. Now they just label it a HATE crime and prosecute for that. Hurting someones feelings.....The "snowflake catchall law"...!!

College won’t punish students for blackface photo, citing First Amendment September 12, 2019 By Joshua Rhett Miller

Four college students in Colorado posted a photo of themselves in blackface, setting off outrage online — but they won’t be disciplined because they’re protected by the First Amendment, university officials said.

The photo, which was posted on Instagram over the weekend, shows four unidentified white Colorado State University students in blackface with a caption reading “Wakanda forevaa,” a reference to Marvel’s “Black Panther” hit film.

The image was quickly blasted by critics who demanded that university officials get involved.

“Anybody that tries to justify this behavior is equally as ignorant and offensive,” one woman wrote on Facebook.

One man who said he attended the university posted on Facebook that the image was “not surprising” at all, while another detractor characterized it as “disgusting and absolutely unacceptable” as they called for consequences, a Facebook thread shows.

But university officials insist their hands are tied, saying that personal social media accounts aren’t under its jurisdiction.

“Our community members — students, faculty and staff — can generally post whatever they wish to post on their personal online accounts in accordance with their First Amendment rights,” CSU president Joyce McConnell wrote in a statement released Tuesday. “This recent post runs counter to our principles of community, but it does not violate any CSU rule or regulation, and the First Amendment prohibits the university from taking any punitive action against those in the photo.”

BUT...

G***g G********w, former Works at Lawyering Now and Again

If an act was legal when committed, one cannot be prosecuted for it simply because the law subsequently changed. Having read other answers I will qualify my answer to say my answer is limited to Canada, USA, the UK and other legal systems based on the British model. Other systems outside of this set may well do ex post facto prosecution
OR

Usually no. That’s called Ex ponst facto law and there’s a whole Wikipedia page about it.

AND....Are you naive enough to believe she is the only one.......?? "Good for thee, but not for me"

Ultra-Liberal Actress Alyssa Milano Admits To Owning Two Guns For 'Self Defense' 09/11/2019 Source: American Update by: AU Staff 

Flickr

Ultra-liberal actress and gun control activist Alyssa Milano made a shocking admission Tuesday night during a debate with Texas Senator Ted Cruz: she owns two guns herself for self defense. As Breitbart reports:

Actress and gun control activist Alyssa Milano revealed she has two guns in her home for self-defense during a debate Tuesday evening with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

The debate was held in Cruz’s Capitol Hill office, where Milano and Fred Guttenberg — whose 14-year-old daughter Jaime was killed in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting in Parkland, Florida — pressed the senator on various gun control proposals...

Around 13 minutes into the discussion, Guttenberg said he was offended by Cruz’s argument that these gun controls would erode Americans’ rights to self-defense. “That’s a load of BS,” he said. “Nobody’s trying to remove your right to self-defense.”

“By the way,” Milano interjected, “I have two guns in my household for self-defense, just so you know.”

This admission from Milano, long known for her advocacy for gun-grabbing laws, is simply stunning. She seems to be fully embracing her own hypocrisy, owning weapons for self defense while encouraging the government to pass laws to strip other law-abiding Americans of their own 2nd amendment rights.