THE DEMOCRAT PARTY, THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND NOVEMBER’S ELECTION…

Slowly but surely the true agenda of the Democrat Party, as it relates to the Second Amendment, is beginning to leak out.  And while those Democrats considered to be more moderate may deny their goal is the repeal of the Second Amendment, what’s being said by the more prominent voices of the party would seem to indicate that that is exactly what the party is seeking.  And as was recently made clear by someone who sounds very much as if he is already a Democrat candidate for president, we had ‘Slow Joe’ Biden recent stating how, in his opinion, our Second Amendment has been very badly interpreted or to use his words, has “been so prostituted.”    

And then we had some bimbo by the name Karen Carter Peterson, (having three names makes you sound more important) who is the Democratic National Committee (DNC) vice chair for ‘civic engagement and voter protection’, who was successful in unleashing the wrath of Twitter when she recently tweeted, “Repeal the Second Amendment.” The Louisiana state senator tweeted out Justice John Paul Stevens’ op-ed from last week in The New York Times calling for repealing the Second Amendment.  Her tweet got only 50 likes and just over 70 retweets, but it conjured up plenty of negative responses which would be far too numerous to try to list here. 

Now while I’m not sure what sort of response this DNC moron was expecting, I feel pretty confident in saying that it wasn’t the overwhelming response that she got.  Also her tweet pulls back the curtain a bit, and allows us a glimpse of what the true position of her party really is.  And despite all of the denials about wanting to repeal the Second Amendment, make no mistake that is in fact what the Democrats will be seeking to do if they are successful in their effort to take back Congress this November.  It will be after the impeachment of our duly elected president that next on their agenda will be the wholesale gutting of the Second Amendment. 

As I see it, these leftwing politicians, by calling for a ban or the repeal of the Second Amendment, are, in fact, in direct violation of their oath of office.  They swore to protect and defend the Constitution against ALL enemies, when they took office.  I see this rhetoric as being grounds for their removal from office, and being permanently barred from ever running again!  It’s sad that when tragedy does occur, our so-called leaders lose all rationale and go on some rant against the Constitution. They offer no hope or solution for the root cause of the problem. It’s like ramming a boat into an iceberg then blaming the boat for sinking, not the guy at the wheel.

The Democrat Party essentially came out of hiding during the Barry ‘O’ years in that Democrats stopped trying to hide what it is that their party stands for, and just how far to the left they have now become.  Where in the past Democrats were far more clandestine about where they stood on those specific issues viewed as being important by a majority of the American people, today it’s as if they don’t really give a crap what the people think.  They made much progress over the last eight years, to the point where they feel much more emboldened when it comes to revealing their true goals.  And while their candidate lost in 2016, that too may soon be rectified.  

The Democrat Party is still forced, albeit to a much lesser degree, to depend on deceit and deception in order to garner for itself a sufficient level of both support for the causes that it endorses and enough votes for those who continue to run under the Democrat banner.  But while the truth is coming out, Democrats can thank their many minions in the state-controlled media for providing them cover.  But despite their best efforts it becomes clearer every day that the Democrats have little interest in merely banning any one type of weapon, what they essentially want to do is to ban the Second Amendment or make it into something that is totally unrecognizable.    

The platform of the Democrat Party as it exists today is one that: 1) Has illegal immigrants being viewed as more important than American citizens, 2) Seeks to repeal tax cuts, 3) Seeks to allow men in women's rest rooms, 4) Seeks the repeal of the Second Amendment, 5) Seeks to severely limit the First Amendment, 6) Allows for and even encourages, unlimited, unvetted and unfettered third world immigration into this country, 7) And seek to eliminate any real education choosing instead to focus on the creating of politically correct, mind-numbed little robots through the complete and very thorough indoctrination of our young.

Make no mistake, if given the opportunity, Democrats will confiscate guns!  The American people must not allow them to take control of Congress this November.  We need to vote FOR America, vote FOR the Constitution, and vote FOR those who will work with the president and against liberal policies.  And I can already hear the grumbling about how even after we gave the Republicans first the House, then the Senate and finally the White House we still ended up with the Democrats still seeming to run the show.  Ok, I’m not thrilled that we elected a bunch of spineless wimps either.  But we can’t turn our backs on the country we’ll be leaving to our kids. 

And I can also now hear folks asking, “So where’s my incentive to vote Republican?”  Well, I guess my only answer would be that the time has now come for those of us who love this country and want to prevent it from going down the tubes entirely, to do more than simply sit back and complain about our crappy Republican leadership.  Obviously we can no longer trust them to do what’s right.  We must get much more involved in our political process.  I think we can all agree that the Democrats are in it for the long haul. And should they be able to regain control of Congress they will waste precious little time in trying to further restrict what few rights we have left.

For years those who proudly identify themselves as members of what has become an increasingly leftwing, and rather radical, Democrat Party have made the claim that nobody wants to take away anyone’s Second Amendment rights.  It's amazing how many on the left are now admitting they want nothing less than to rip up our Constitution, which is the most unique document of its kind ever created in all of human history, because it makes clear that our rights come to us from God.  The Democrats think our rights come only from government, a government that would also be free to take those rights away.  It that truly how most Americans wish to live?

Anyone who believes in the dismantling, or the reinterpreting, of our Constitutional, or feels that the government somehow possesses the power to infringe upon those rights contained therein, should be disqualified from ever holding, or even running for, ANY public office.  Because if one does not truly believe that all of the rights we possess as free people, as they are so very clearly laid out in our Constitution, come from God, then how is it that any oath that has one swearing to protect and defend that same Constitution has any meaning?  Our Constitution is the very soul of our Republic and as such it must be protected from those who seek only to destroy it. 

DEMOCRATS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT…

Ya know, it seems like for as long as I can remember Democrats have always managed to somehow see things written in our Constitution that, quite simply, were nowhere to be found.  And for just as long Democrats have had what can only be described as being a rather fluid opinion of what our Constitution says, especially as it relates to everything from the right to have an abortion all the way up to, and including, the right to free healthcare.  Democrats have a rather unique interpretation of our Constitution are constant on the lookout for new things to read into it. 

And it was most recently that, while doing some idiotic interview on “AC360”, some idiotic program on the Communist New Network (CNN) that ‘Slow Joe’ Biden provided yet another example when he told Gloria Borger that “the Second Amendment says you can limit who can own a gun.”  Now while I may not be a constitutional scholar on the level of, say, a Barry “Almighty”, I’m still pretty sure that that’s not quite what the Second Amendment actually says.  And making that same claim over and over again will not alter that fact that in this country we have the right to own a gun.

‘Slow Joe’ then went on to say, “people who are criminals shouldn’t have guns. People who are schizophrenic and have mental illnesses shouldn’t have guns.”  And it’s the Second Amendment that says on the matter, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  Democrats have always attempted to apply their own definition to this clause in the hopes of being able to convince people that their goal of disarming law abiding citizens would eventually come to sound reasonable.

Because Democrats like old ‘Slow Joe’ would like nothing better than to strip from every law abiding citizen their constitutional guaranteed right to own a gun.  Because Democrats know full well that it’s these very same citizens who, still today, essentially maintain what can safely be said to be that last line of defense between what’s left of our freedom and the tyranny which those like ‘Slow Joe’ would like nothing more than to inflict upon these United States.  If Democrats ever become successful in their endeavor, it’s on that day we will be completely at their mercy.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE RULE OF LAW...

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

So if you think that it can’t happen here?  Think again, my friends, because it already has albeit on a small scale!  The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical local government in August 1946.

Now look around you at what “We the People” are being confronted with from our rapidly expanding government.   What we are forced to contend with is that same sort of tyrannical government but on a national scale.  And God help us all if it’s Hitlery Clinton who becomes our next president.  

IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT...

FILE THIS ONE UNDER: “WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND”…

Apparently a Durham, North Carolina restaurant with a sign on its front door reading, "No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms," got itself robbed at gunpoint back on May 19. And try as I might to work up a little sympathy for the owner of this fine eating establishment, I’m just not feelin’ it. Because as far as I’m concerned, they brought it all on themselves.

I’m told that it was a website by the name of Gunsnfreedom.com that published a photograph of the sign on May 21, making "The Pit" restaurant a self-declared gun free zone--the same kind of zone that Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America are doing their best to pressure other restaurants into becoming.

According to Durham's ABC 11, around 9 PM "three men wearing ‘hoodies’ entered the restaurant through the back door with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor." The armed men "also assaulted two employees during the crime." The suspects appear to be still on the loose, perhaps on the lookout for other such gun-free restaurants to rob.

I’m sure most are now quite familiar with the fact that Chipotle recently announced their intended gun ban by saying the sight of law-abiding citizens carrying guns caused customers "anxiety and discomfort." And it was shortly thereafter that Breitbart News responded with what was a very simple and straightforward question.

The question was: If law-abiding citizens caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," what will those customers feel like when a criminal enters Chipotle, now confident that no victim in the restaurant is allowed to have a gun with which to fight back? Perhaps the armed attack on "The Pit" can be of some help in answering this very basic question.

All this talk of ‘gun free’ zones sounds good, but no one seems to take into account all of those unintended consequences that always raise their ugly head. I mean it doesn’t, or at least it shouldn’t, take a rocket scientist to figure out that the first place that any robber is going to go is somewhere where they KNOW there will be no one with a gun. DUH!

Come on folks, just how stupid does someone really need to be to put a sign like that right on their front door? Might as well have a sign that says, "Come on in and rob us!" How is it that these days we have fewer and fewer people who possess any amount of commonsense? Because who in their right mind would ever think such a sign was a good idea?

IN DEFENSE OF MR. CLIVEN BUNDY…

So another front has apparently now been opened up in the continuing attack on Mr. Cliven Bundy. So in addition to Mr. Bundy and his family having already been labeled as being "domestic terrorists" there seems to be many in our state-controlled media now very willing to jump on the bash Bundy bandwagon. Because in recently making what were nothing more than some very valid statements, it was in very short order that the left seized upon those statements, and began accusing Mr. Bundy of being a racist, which is always the standard fallback position for those on the left whenever confronted with the likes of Mr. Bundy. Because when all else fails, just throw around accusations of racism.

The rancher, who won his first showdown this month with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over grazing rights for his herd, simply made the point regarding African-Americans and their choice to live off of government assistance. He also claimed that they abort their children and end up in jail because they have no jobs. Bundy said, "I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom." So I’m just not seeing how his statements can in any way be seen as being racist. So I guess that would make me a racist too?

And then in recalling the time that he once drove past a public-housing project in north Las Vegas, he continued, "I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro…in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do." Again, he’s doing nothing more than to make what I see as a very valid point. And I wonder if the reason that so many now appear to be so angry, might be because Mr. Bundy’s comments are maybe a little too close to the truth.

And we shouldn’t be all that surprised that many Republican ‘leaders’ are now backing off from their support of the Nevada cattle rancher after he made his recent remarks that were then reported in The New York Times. Nevada’s Republican Sen. Dean Heeler, for instance, had previously claimed that Bundy’s supporters were "patriots," but following Bundy’s remarks he’s started to "backtrack." His spokesman, Chandler Smith, told the Times that the senator "completely disagrees with Mr. Bundy’s appalling and racist statements, and condemns them in the most strenuous way." Personally, I don’t see how anything that Mr. Bundy said makes him any less of a patriot than he was before he made his comments.

Next taking part in this kneejerk reaction, is Rand Paul. Sen Paul, as you may be aware, is one those who may make a run for the White House in 2016, and is someone who had supported Bundy’s cattle battle with the government. But in a recent statement provided by a spokesman for Paul to Business Insider on Thursday, the senator denounced Bundy's comments. Paul said, "His remarks on race are offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with him." While I like Sen. Paul, I just think in this particular instance he’s being just a bit too quick in his willingness to throw Mr. Bundy to the wolves, as are the many other Republicans who have now taken a similar position.

And the same thing goes for Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott who is currently running for governor to replace Rick Perry. Mr. Abbott had jumped into the controversy by stating that the BLM was planning to claim thousands of acres in the Lone Star State along the Red River, and he had made it clear that he had told the agency to back off. But his spokeswoman Laura Bean tried to distance the Republican gubernatorial candidate from Bundy by telling the liberal newspaper that the letter Abbott wrote to the BLM "was regarding a dispute in Texas and is in no way related to the dispute in Nevada." So I guess all it takes is accusations of racism to scare off Mr. Bundy’s supporters.

In responding to all of this hoopla, Mr. Bundy said, "That’s exactly what I said. I said I’m wondering if they’re better off under government subsidy, and their young women are having the abortions and their young men are in jail, and their older women and their children are standing, sitting out on the cement porch without nothing to do, you know, I’m wondering: Are they happier now under this government subsidy system than they were when they were slaves, and they was able to have their family structure together, and the chickens and garden, and the people had something to do? And so, in my mind I’m wondering, are they better off being slaves, in that sense, or better off being slaves to the United States government, in the sense of the subsidies. I’m wondering. That’s what. And the statement was right. I am wondering."

Now if Mr. Bundy can be said to be guilty of anything, it’s the fact that he may have been just a little too blunt in making his statements. And while I don’t know the man, I have a feeling that that’s just the kind of man he is. A no nonsense, blunt and straight to the point, kind of man. And I would also have to say that I think that to some degree his statements have continued to be taken out of context. This is just more the same double-standard that those on the right are always made to contend with. Let’s face it, how many truly racist things have we heard come those on the left, without there every being nary a word mentioned in the press. But let someone on the right make what are obviously some very valid points, and we see just how quickly the knives come out.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT...

Charlton Heston explains the importance of the Second Amendment.

FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS...

Charlton Heston said it best...

OBAMA SAID TO HAVE STRONG RECORD ON SECOND AMENDMENT...

 

 

Even though Barry recently signed 23 executive orders regarding additional and more restrictive gun control and is now pushing hard for Congress to pass more gun-restriction measures, according to Spokesmoron, Jay Carney, we're still supposed to trust Barry because he has a "strong record on Second Amendment rights." What we actually have here is nothing more than yet another attempt by this hoodlum adminstration to rewrite history, and in particular, when it comes to Barry and the Second amendment. Because upon closer examination, Barry's supposed strong record on the Second Amendment is one that has him seeking out ways to undermine it while at the same time claiming to support it.

 

 

On Wednesday, a reporter asked he who is everybody's favorite dipshit, Carney, "What is the president doing to convince members of his own party in the Senate that are against the measure [to re-ban assault weapons]?" Carney responded in his typical bullshit fashion, saying that the president has been an advocate for the Second Amendment. "Well, he’s had conversations with various lawmakers on this issue," Carney said, "including those who have a strong record of support for Second Amendment rights, and I would note that the president has a strong record of support for Second Amendment rights." Oh really? I'd like some examples, please.

 

 

Carney droned on, "The point he’s making, and I think that the point that a lot of people have been making, including lawmakers, have been making in the wake of Newtown is that we can do certain things that still protect those Second Amendment rights and that address this problem and address it in a broader way than just through gun control legislation, although that’s an important piece of it." Adding finally that, "And that’s why we saw the president move quickly with the vice president’s assistance and leadership to put forward that package of proposals." Ok, it was enough of a stretch to say that Barry supports the Second Amendment, but to say Biden has provided leadership on the issue is just flat out dishonest. .

 

 

On Jan. 16, as you all will most likely remember, Barry signed into effect 23 separate 'executive orders' having to do with gun control. They included having the Justice Department review categories of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms; directing the Justice Department to issue a report designed to promote "smart" gun technologies; directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research the cause of gun violence; and requiring federal law enforcement agencies to request the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace all guns seized in criminal investigations. I am curouls about something though, are these the same clowns who were responsible for tracking the weapons involved in "Fast and Furious?"

 

 

And speaking about Barry's suppposed strong record on the Second Amendment, before becoming president, Barry did have a voting record while in the U.S. Senate and Illinois state legislature that makes quite plain his desire for stricter gun control . It was in March 2003, that Obama voted in the Illinois state Senate to ban semiautomatic rifles. Now Barry did vote for legislation in the state Senate in 2004 to allow retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, The Chicago Tribune reported on April 27, 2004, but he was also running for the U.S. Senate at the time. The article also reported that critics charged that Barry with only seeking the favor of the Fraternal Order of Police at a time when he was running for statewide office. No, not Barry! Barry wouldn't so obviously pander, would he?

 

 

Barry explained in the 2004 Tribune article, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I mean, I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he had previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms." Then in July 2005, as a U.S. senator, Obama voted against a bill that would have prohibited lawsuits against gun manufacturers that would potentially hold the companies liable for violence committed by the guns. I suppose he was hoping that by allowing trial lawyers to go after gun manufactures, they wold eventually be driven out of business,

 

 

And then it was back during the Democratic presidential primary of 2008 that Barry said, "There is an individual right to bear arms. But it’s subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulations," the Chicago Tribune reported on Feb. 16, 2008. In April 2009, just a few short months after becoming president, Barry said during a joint press conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, "I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment right in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners that want to keep their families safe, to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know here in Mexico, are used to fuel violence."

 

 

Fast forward to a short time after the Tucson, Ariz. shooting in early 2011, where we had The Arizona Daily Star publish a commentary by Barry that called for gun reforms. "First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books," it stated. "Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens. Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler." After the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting in July 2012, Barry said, "I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons. We should check someone’s criminal record before they can check out a gun seller."

 

 

And it was during the debate at Hofstra University, that Barry made one of his strongest pronouncements in favor of tighter gun control since becoming president. "What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally," Barry said. "Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence -- because, frankly, in my hometown of Chicago there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns." So yes, Barry does have a strong record regarding the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, it's one that would seem to indicate that he's not much in favor of it. And as we have recently seen, he's not opposed to using dead children in order to accomplish his goals.



HAPPY SECOND AMENDMENT! IT'S OUR 'RIGHT!!'...

A VETERAN STANDS UP FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT...

TODAY AMERICANS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY CAME OUT IN SUPPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT...

CONCORD, N.H.

 

HARTFORD, CONN.

 

ALBANY, N.Y.

 

CONCORD, N.H.

 

HARTFORD, CONN.

 

ATLANTA, GA.

 

ALBANY, N.Y.

 

MONTGOMERY, ALA.

 

PHOENIX, AZ.

 

SALT LAKE CITY, AZ.

 

PHOENIX, AZ.

 

BOISE, ID.

 

BOSTON, MA.

 

NASHVILLE, TN.

 

ATLANTA, GA.

 

HARTFORD, CONN.

 

OLYMPIA, WA.

 

AUSTIN, TX.

EXCELLENT VIDEO ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT...