They’re coming for our guns (really)
TheeOSU
FUCK IT!
Wednesday, July 22, 2020 4:28 PM
I've known that similar scenarios have always been the agenda of the democrats going back many years. Despite their denials they have been plotting to disarm the public and the only reason it hasn't happened is because they haven't been able to grab enough control.
Yet.
I'm actually amazed that with all the leftwing media support pushing the anti-gun agenda and the whiny squeaky wheel types that cry until they get their way that we still have the 2nd amendment but is it possible that their perfect storm is brewing?
In a year where nothing is normal and the fake news, lies, and attacks on the President are unprecedented will they finally get the control they've been seeking this November?
I've said at least a couple times on TUSCL that I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and probably wouldn't this time either (although I'm definitely happy that the beast Clinton didn't get in) but the thought of one party rule by a party (democrats) that is no longer hiding their extreme anti American agenda is too much to ignore. If I vote for president this year Trump gets my vote.
This article won't change left or right minds but it might open the eyes of people in the middle that value our unique 2nd amendment. Once that right falls the others will follow!
They’re coming for our guns (really)
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Content Agency
For years conservative groups and especially the National Rifle Association have been warning that the government would find a way to confiscate the guns of law-abiding Americans. Many dismissed what they regarded as a scare tactic designed to raise money.
What is happening in St. Louis should awaken us to the fact that those fears are well founded.
The top prosecutor in St. Louis has charged a married couple with “felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.”
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who the media identify as being “white,” are in their 60s. Both are personal injury attorneys. Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner says their actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise “peaceful protest” last month.
Doesn’t Gardner have it backwards?
The gun owners, who say protesters had trespassed on their property, claim they were protecting their home from what could have turned into a violent mob as they no doubt had seen happen on TV in other cities. A case could be made that their display of weapons prevented violence, which is one of the purposes of the Second Amendment. Having a gun for personal protection can be a deterrent without it ever being fired. The McCloskeys did not fire their guns, but only waved them at the protesters while yelling at them.
The McCloskeys have some powerful defenders, including President Trump and Missouri Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, who has said he will pardon the couple if they are convicted. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is another supporter. Hawley has asked Attorney General William Barr to begin an investigation to determine whether the McCloskey’s civil rights have been violated.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt is also on the side of the McCloskeys. Schmitt has filed a brief with the court that says in part, “The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our Constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine.” The Castle law was passed in 2017 and provides for “stand your ground” protection for citizens who feel threatened by others.
Police seized Mark McCloskey’s semi-automatic weapon and Patricia McCloskey later voluntarily surrendered her pistol.
This case is not only important on its own but demonstrates what could happen if Joe Biden wins the presidency. In March, while the COVID-19 virus was beginning to overtake us, Biden said this about Beto O’Rourke after O’Rourke dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Biden: “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort. I’m counting on you. I’m counting on you.” He then added, “We need you badly, the state needs you, the country needs you. You’re the best.”
Last year while still a candidate, O’Rourke said during a debate carried by ABC News: “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.” And after that, what? Having established a precedent that the government has a right to confiscate a weapon owned by a law-abiding citizen, what other guns would O’Rourke (and Biden) come for and on what grounds? What would stop them if more liberal judges are named to the courts and they ignore or re-interpret the Second Amendment?
Do any of the shooters in our major cities pay attention to anti-gun laws, or laws against murder? By definition they are lawbreakers and no one has been able to tell me how passing more laws will suddenly turn them into law-abiders.
By brandishing their weapons, the McCloskeys possibly deterred the marchers outside their home from engaging in actions far worse than their alleged trespassing. If they are convicted, they should be immediately pardoned by the governor. This should be a lesson learned about one of the many dangers of a Joe Biden presidency.
Yet.
I'm actually amazed that with all the leftwing media support pushing the anti-gun agenda and the whiny squeaky wheel types that cry until they get their way that we still have the 2nd amendment but is it possible that their perfect storm is brewing?
In a year where nothing is normal and the fake news, lies, and attacks on the President are unprecedented will they finally get the control they've been seeking this November?
I've said at least a couple times on TUSCL that I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and probably wouldn't this time either (although I'm definitely happy that the beast Clinton didn't get in) but the thought of one party rule by a party (democrats) that is no longer hiding their extreme anti American agenda is too much to ignore. If I vote for president this year Trump gets my vote.
This article won't change left or right minds but it might open the eyes of people in the middle that value our unique 2nd amendment. Once that right falls the others will follow!
They’re coming for our guns (really)
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Content Agency
For years conservative groups and especially the National Rifle Association have been warning that the government would find a way to confiscate the guns of law-abiding Americans. Many dismissed what they regarded as a scare tactic designed to raise money.
What is happening in St. Louis should awaken us to the fact that those fears are well founded.
The top prosecutor in St. Louis has charged a married couple with “felony unlawful use of a weapon for displaying guns during a racial injustice protest outside their mansion.”
Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who the media identify as being “white,” are in their 60s. Both are personal injury attorneys. Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner says their actions risked creating a violent situation during an otherwise “peaceful protest” last month.
Doesn’t Gardner have it backwards?
The gun owners, who say protesters had trespassed on their property, claim they were protecting their home from what could have turned into a violent mob as they no doubt had seen happen on TV in other cities. A case could be made that their display of weapons prevented violence, which is one of the purposes of the Second Amendment. Having a gun for personal protection can be a deterrent without it ever being fired. The McCloskeys did not fire their guns, but only waved them at the protesters while yelling at them.
The McCloskeys have some powerful defenders, including President Trump and Missouri Governor Mike Parson, a Republican, who has said he will pardon the couple if they are convicted. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is another supporter. Hawley has asked Attorney General William Barr to begin an investigation to determine whether the McCloskey’s civil rights have been violated.
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt is also on the side of the McCloskeys. Schmitt has filed a brief with the court that says in part, “The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our Constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine.” The Castle law was passed in 2017 and provides for “stand your ground” protection for citizens who feel threatened by others.
Police seized Mark McCloskey’s semi-automatic weapon and Patricia McCloskey later voluntarily surrendered her pistol.
This case is not only important on its own but demonstrates what could happen if Joe Biden wins the presidency. In March, while the COVID-19 virus was beginning to overtake us, Biden said this about Beto O’Rourke after O’Rourke dropped out of the presidential race and endorsed Biden: “You’re going to take care of the gun problem with me. You’re going to be the one who leads this effort. I’m counting on you. I’m counting on you.” He then added, “We need you badly, the state needs you, the country needs you. You’re the best.”
Last year while still a candidate, O’Rourke said during a debate carried by ABC News: “Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.” And after that, what? Having established a precedent that the government has a right to confiscate a weapon owned by a law-abiding citizen, what other guns would O’Rourke (and Biden) come for and on what grounds? What would stop them if more liberal judges are named to the courts and they ignore or re-interpret the Second Amendment?
Do any of the shooters in our major cities pay attention to anti-gun laws, or laws against murder? By definition they are lawbreakers and no one has been able to tell me how passing more laws will suddenly turn them into law-abiders.
By brandishing their weapons, the McCloskeys possibly deterred the marchers outside their home from engaging in actions far worse than their alleged trespassing. If they are convicted, they should be immediately pardoned by the governor. This should be a lesson learned about one of the many dangers of a Joe Biden presidency.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
57 comments
Except for the alternative
His America first attitude, his pressure on China, he had the economy humming before the virus hit, calling out agenda pushing fake news, and I like how he hits back at his detractors. They hit him he hits them back, often harder.
Definitely better than the previous alternative and better than the current alternative.
I've never been a gun-owner and have never necessarily been for or against it - on-the-one-hand I feel there are too-many guns in our society leading to too many deaths and "on the surface" I think all guns in the hands of civilians (both law-abiding and criminals) could be mostly-eliminated if there was enough will, and this would perhaps eliminate most of the gun-murders as seems to be the case in most others advanced nations (i.e. I "think" the proliferation of guns in our society makes it in large part easier for criminals to have them) - OTOH I feel America being an open democracy based on little government control, means that perhaps b/c of this openness it would be very hard to keep guns away from criminals and I'm def not-down with criminals being able to get guns and law-abiding citizens not being able to - for me personally not being a gun aficionado, I would prefer no guns in hands of civilians *if* this also meant no guns in the hands of criminals (e.g. AFAIK gun ownership in Mexico and Canada is very strict, as a result it's my understanding w.r.t. Mexico is that a lot of the illegal guns come from the U.S. - so if the U.S. had similar stringent laws, perhaps it would be much much harder for illegal guns to be had - not sure).
In many ways Trump seems to have been his biggest enemy - seems a lot of the shit he's brought on himself - in some ways he governs like a NY mafia boss - he's picked one senseless fight after another since day one of his administration and has stepped in one pile-of-shit after another primarily w.r.t. many statements he makes instead of just focusing on the big things ; and seems a lot of his actions make it harder for his cabinet to focus on the things that gotta get done.
Still - the alternative that could potentially come will be like nothing we've ever seen in this country - Biden is surrounding himself with the most radical elements of the Democratic party from Sanders, to Cortez, to O'rurke, to Warren, all of whom seem to be in line for powerful cabinet posts or at least lots of influence in a potential new government.
IMO the "anything but Trump" crowd is being shortsighted and basing this election mostly on just not liking Trump and seemingly willing to let America become a shadow of its self - besides not liking Trump, I can't see how Trump has made the life of any American worse than 4 years ago - what right(s) has he taken away from anyone? - pre-Covid, this nation had never been richer and had never been freer - all this would change under Biden's radical government.
But Trump takes the cake killing 140k people by coughing in their faces and giving them the virus right jack.
Deploy to Chicago and Albuquerque to resist government tyranny
Not sure what you are saying here???
1) You don't think the Democrats would ever want to take weapons away from private citizens?
2) Or you won't ever let them take your guns as in "I won't comply"???
3) Who remembers the bumper sticker.........."When they pry it from "My Cold Dead Fingers"
I see a come back for this bumper sticker............
I own guns. Defend your property 100%. But you don't go pointing a gun at people passing by your house. What's the rule only point the gun at someone you intend to shoot? What if that idiot got startled and accidentally shot someone? She was charged with menacing by firearm which is basically assault. If she stood there with the gun at her side and did not threaten people with it, no news story.
That said, what they CAN do is limit our ability to USE firearms, and they do that state by state, rule by rule, as small as each step may seem. It cost me over $800 to replace my magazines with "10 round" limited capacity mags about 2 years ago when the law was changed from 15 to 10, and I had to destroy and dispose of all my old ones. If the law ever gets changed back (not likely) I'll have to buy them all over again.
I live in New Jersey. Sadly, one of the most important states in the war for American independence, it has become the most perfect example of modern totalitarianism. The Democrats are big proponents of recreational marijuana, right? (Probably the one and only issue I actually agree with them.) So imagine if you were allowed to sell and/or purchase marijuana, store it, roll it into a joint or pack it into a bong, but the one thing you're NOT allowed to do, under any circumstance, is SMOKE it. That's New Jersey's approach to firearms ownership.
It begins with the fact that under NJ law (and contrary to the Constitution) every single firearm inside the boundaries of the state is deemed ILLEGAL. Yup, even guns carried by police officers are technically illegal. You can obtain the "permission" to sell/purchase/own/carry, only if you meet one of the "exceptions" to the law. Obviously, if you're a police officer, you qualify for an exemption. It's kind of like how everybody has to pay taxes, but if you're a 501 (c)(3) you are exempt from that rule. If you're a woman with a psycho ex-husband who has beaten you up and threatened to kill you numerous times, good luck getting a carry permit. It doesn't exist in NJ unless you're a judge or a politician.
As a regular citizen, you can own a gun, as long as it's not out of compliance with the arbitrary and quite senseless rules. For example, if you own an AR-15, it may NOT have an adjustable shoulder stock to make it more comfortable to shoot. The "obvious" reason for that is because it also has a pistol grip. Duh! That makes it so much more dangerous, right? If there was no pistol grip (never heard of such a thing on an AR) then the adjustable stock would be okay. But a new company (Troy Arms) came out with something called the "Other Gun" which DOES have both a pistol grip AND an adjustable stock. It's allowed in NJ only BECAUSE it has TWO pistol grips, front and rear, instead of regular front hand grips. Here, see for yourself: https://techopsinternational.com/wp-cont… If you remove the front pistol grip, it's illegal.
When I go to the range for target practice, my guns must be secured inside lockable cases with padlocks. The ammo and unloaded magazines must be stored separately. All of it must be in the trunk of my car. If it's in the back seat, or if I forget to click a padlock closed, or if I have one round inside a magazine which was otherwise properly stowed away, or if one loose round is accidentally inside the compartment with the locked gun, I could be subject to a 10 year minimum jail sentence for a "gun crime." In NJ a gun crime means any violation involving a gun. An accidental breach of some administrative rule is the same as if I used the gun to rob a gas station.
Regarding home defense: We have NO Castle Doctrine in NJ. In fact, what we have is called a "duty to retreat." If a gang of thugs breaks down your front door, you're expected to jump out a window or run out your back door, screaming like a little girl. If you discharge a firearm, shit, if you even brandish a firearm, you're getting arrested, even if you don't actually shoot one of the home invaders. It will be up to a jury of your "peers," who are 3/4 liberal Democrats, who weren't at the scene, who have never owned a gun in their lives, to determine whether or not you had "no other choice" but to draw a weapon. They'd prefer it if you had called 911, right before getting shot to death.
If by some miracle you are exonerated, the legal fees are on you bro. Thank God for firearms liability insurance. Oh wait... in New Jersey, that's called "murder insurance" and it's illegal. An insurance firm in Texas found a "loophole" in NJ law, and now offers an "association" that you can belong to for an annual fee. If you're arrested for a "gun crime" then an attorney will represent you for free (with certain limitations). Technically, it's not insurance. I was one of the first to sign up. Of course, legal fees are just the beginning of your problems if you exercise your 2nd Amendment rights in NJ. You'll spend time in jail with the dregs of society, not some white collar jail. After all, you're a felonious gun owner, same as a hardened gang banger. Unlikely as it may be, if you win your case, your life and finances will still be a total mess.
As I understand it, the situation is much the same in NY, CT, MA, MD, VA, CA and HI. Probably a few others too. The US Supreme Court, even with its supposed "conservative" majority, recently refused to hear 10 cases posed by states appealing to protect the 2nd Amendment. If Biden gets in, you'll be defending your home and family with rocks and a baseball bat, against heavily armed thugs just released on $0.00 bail. Even if you live in TX or AZ.
Good luck with that.
It's interesting how the video only show a calm, peaceful group parading through the neighborhood, and they use that as proof these gun owners were overreacting. Obviously, after the homeowners drew their guns, there was no disruption from the rioters. I thought that's the reason we have castle doctrine in most states.
From the article:
For instance, in Coalition Against the War v. J.M.B. Realty, 138 N.J.326 (1994), the Court held that New Jersey’s free speech protections protected leafleting in shopping malls because shopping malls had become, in essence, the new “downtown.” Similarly, in State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535, 563 (1980), the Court held that Princeton University could not ban leafleting on
its quad. There is some indication from lower courts that these same sorts of free speech rights would apply in the context of gated communities and condominiums.
I read this as if you can get in you can protest. At least in NJ.
As far as private property is concerned, property owners can usually, if not absolutely determine what their property can be used for, with the restrictions governed by property zoning codes and land use laws, short answer no one can actually enter a gated community without prior consent, with some exceptions (Law Enforcement and they need a warrant) and protesters are not an exception, unless a permission is granted by the owner, but in reality, that's a pure red herring no-one is allowed to use private property unless it is permitted by the property owner.
The federal government has no business involving itself in the affairs of a state, it's pretty well accepted doctrine in this country, unless the Fed has been asked to intervene by duly elected representatives of the state or city, this smacks of dictatorship ala Vladmir Putin, or Fidel Castro, even Hugo Chavez.
Unless Mr Trump receives a clear invitation, from a recognized authority, he needs to stay out of states internal affairs, any other course of action will be found to violate the Constitution, (I believe the Posse Comitatus act) and prior precedent
However, I don't think trying to prevent a federal building from being destroyed and wanting to stop a tidal wave of gang violence makes Trump's actions comparable to Castro and company.
Here is a link to what I'm talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_stan…
I think you need to go back to school and take a civics class, y'all obviously missed the one about the three equally empowered branches of government.
The only way to preserve our nation is to ensure that every democrat hack running in Nov loses.
"...Wow we have a real Supreme Court scholar in our midst"
ANYONE compared to you would be a scholar in ANY field!
Let me take that back. You are the Einstein of stupid!
Tell us again how smart you are.
Nevermind, here you are... > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUiw6kMH…
They had also spent years and tons of $$$ rehabilitating their house and might've been scared their home might be targeted?
Trump literally turned the Republican Party into the Libertarian Party in all but name.
"... you start with offhanded insults and taking little snide shots at me you're going to get them back. You have a history of doing it..."
He is an expert at that. EXPERT = X, an unknown, spurt, a drip under pressure, an unknown drip under pressure!! Likely lives in his mother's attic. Few basements in Florida.
You bore me so fuck off, and go troll someone else, you don't have the intellect to play the dozens with me.
"...you don't have the intellect to play the dozens with me."
Correct, since you are in the relatively elite 1.9% of the Extremely Low IQ Classifications used in Educational circles, you have me there.
Stupid as I may be, on my stupidest day, I’m still smarter than you ever have been, or ever will be.
AUSTIN PROTEST ENDS IN GUNFIRE WITH ONE DEAD
"...The victim, identified as Garrett Foster, reportedly was protesting, carrying a rifle and approached the shooter's car, and that's when he was struck ..."
https://www.tmz.com/2020/07/26/austin-sh…
"Stupid as I may be, on my stupidest day, I’m still smarter than you ever have been, or ever will be."
That the best you got? A 3 year old could do better!
Whats next, sticks and stones???
The couple has a right to defend their own home, but less of a right to defend the subdivision's street. Are you saying protestors were up in their front yard or just on the street? I do not know this, but there may also be a distinction between protecting your yard and your actual house.
Lol, that was before forensics and ubiquitous cameras.