FBI ‘Active Shooter’ Report Supports ‘Good Guy with a Gun’ Claims

It’s curious the Bureau made an editorial decision to emphasize an investigation it’s being so tight-lipped about.

A recently released report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation credits armed citizens with saving lives. “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017” was released  in April, and provides hard evidence that gun-grabbers who ridicule the efficacy of keeping and bearing arms are demonstrably agenda-driven liars.

“The FBI has designated 50 shootings in 2016 and 2017 as active shooter incidents,” the report summarizes. “Twenty incidents occurred in 2016, while 30 incidents occurred in 2017.

“The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area,” the report continues. “Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of one or more firearms. The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation. “

And how have citizens “affected the outcome”?

“Eight shooters were stopped by citizens,” the report documents, up from six credited in a 2014/2015 report:

“In four incidents, citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter. In two incidents, citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In two incidents, the citizens held the shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived. In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter, causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting. In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit was wounded before he could fire at the shooter.”

That’s a pretty good record, especially considering how the doctrinaire gun-grabbers scoff at the idea, say it never happens, and claim “untrained” people would either end up getting killed or killing innocents themselves.

It also belies charges that gun owners are violent and bloodthirsty, just looking for an excuse to kill someone. The reported incidents reflect appropriate actions and judgment, and while it’s true that one citizen was wounded, no one has ever claimed having a gun makes someone invincible – what it can do (and based on results does) is offer a better chance than being defenseless and helpless.

What the report does not do is specify which locations where armed citizens did not help stop a shooter were so-called “gun-free zones.” We can make educated guesses about some of the incidents, such as school shootings, but as presented it’s difficult to extrapolate on lives that could have been saved had an armed presence been encouraged rather than forbidden by ignorance and/or law.

As things stand, there’s no reason to doubt the potential for more saves, and it’s up to anyone who disputes that to produce proof that the FBI is wrong when it acknowledges:

“Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives.”

There is, however, one major flaw in the report that defenders of gun owner rights should be sensitive to. Jeff Knox, director of The Firearms Coalition advocates that using the term “active shooter” to describe scumbag murderers is wrong and ought to be reclaimed by the real – and peaceable – active shooters.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post FBI ‘Active Shooter’ Report Supports ‘Good Guy with a Gun’ Claims appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Veteran Campaigns for Office by Attacking Private Gun Sales and the Right to Own Semiautomatic Firearms

That is simply not true. It’s repeating an intentional deception crafted decades ago by the Violence Policy Center to exploit public ignorance and fear.

“Democrat buys semiautomatic rifle at Va. gun show in under 10 minutes,” The Washington Post crows in a “Gotcha!” headline designed to misuse supposedly “straight news” to stir up a demand for political action:

“Dan Helmer, an Army veteran, said he bought a firearm similar to the one he carried in Iraq and Afghanistan to show how easy it is to legally obtain an ‘in­cred­ibly dangerous piece of weaponry that’s meant for war” from a private seller. He bought the gun less than two miles from a public school, he said.”

Emotionally manipulate the ignorant much? The firearm may be cosmetically “similar,” but you can bet he didn’t carry a semiautomatic rifle when deployed. As for being “meant for war,” you’ll note he’s not questioning why police should have them if that’s the case, plus he’s intentionally ignoring what the citizen militia is entitled to:  Per the Miller Court, “the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”

Plus he’s repeating one of the oldest lies in the gun-grabber playbook.

It’s beyond curious that the monopoly of violence zealots behind semiautomatic bans “justify” them by screaming they are “weapons of war.” Those, of course, are precisely what the Founders deemed necessary for members of the citizen militia to keep and bear. To insist otherwise is to maintain their purpose was to have the “whole people” called forth to be slaughtered – hardly a prescription for a secure or free State.

And this business of “less than two miles form a public school” is pure hysteria –ginning aimed at spooking the herd.  Helmer might as well tell them he thinks they’re ignorant and stupid, which you’d probably have to be to vote for such an obvious manipulator. And besides, if guns are too dangerous to be allowed in such areas, 90% of the country could be declared off-limits.

Helmer took an oath when he enlisted and he’ll take another if elected. How he squares that with active subversion of the Bill of Rights in order to gain political power is left unsaid. Hey,if these guys can get away with it and be rewarded…

And WaPo, of course, has long been in the business of undermining the right to keep and bear arms by the law-abiding, yet somehow ready to turn a blind eye to real and deadly abuses that don’t advance the narrative.  Case in point: When they gave Obama cover over his transparent lie related to OperationFast and Furious “gunwalking.”

As a DSM outlet continually wringing its hands over “gun violence,” here’s a chance to see if they’ll do it again, via one of the comments they allowed to be posted under their article (it won’t “hot link,” but the comment appears at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/democrats-race-to-prove-who-hates-guns-more-in-northern-virginia-house-primary/2018/05/01/d3ad87a0-4cbb-11e8-b725-92c89fe3ca4c_story.html?commentId=a84d12d5-839e-4907-ba5e-80ec88add3e6&outputType=comment&utm_term=.718ade7a6fed) :

My money’s on the guy turning out to be an anti-gun liar, which is, face it, what all grabbers are.  That said, if the paper’s editorial board is really serious about “gun control,” the comment poster is using their forum to brag that he committed a felony and is a “gun criminal.”

Seeing as how it’s impossible for us to tell if the claim is a lie or the truth, and in the spirit of the Department of Homeland Security’s “If you see something, say something” advice, it will be interesting to see if WaPo rats the guy out and volunteers his information (email and IP addresses, etc.) to the feds.

Also see: “‘He’s LYING’: Tweeters call BS on congressional hopeful’s ‘gun show loophole’ exposé”

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Veteran Campaigns for Office by Attacking Private Gun Sales and the Right to Own Semiautomatic Firearms appeared first on Oath Keepers.

‘Caravan’ a Deliberate Attempt to Exploit U.S. Laws and Undermine National Sovereignty

If they’ve already been permitted by government authorities to enter and freely traverse Mexico, they’ve already escaped the danger and oppression they claim to need asylum from. (Pueblo sin Fronteras/Twitter)

“Some people ‘associated with’ Central American caravan have entered U.S. illegally, federal officials say,” the Los Angeles Times “reports” in an agenda piece designed to elicit requisite sympathy for political advantage. “A pregnant woman and some children as young as 4 were detected entering the U.S. through a canyon that authorities described in a statement as dark, treacherous and ‘notorious for human and drug smuggling.’”

The first question one might ask is how the hell border security is so lax that this can happen. We know the “caravan” is coming and the canyon is a well-known route. If a pregnant woman (whose child will be a “birthright citizen” if allowed to stay) and children (who will all become wards of the U.S. taxpayers if they are) can make it through to our side under such conditions, it’s fair to ask how many blind eyes are deliberate, especially with recent reports of U.S. federal and local oath-breakers turning a profit off human smuggling.

What’s the reason we have government again?

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the caravan ‘a deliberate attempt to undermine our laws and overwhelm our system,’ pledging to send more immigration judges to the border to resolve cases if needed,” the Associated Press reports.

Why? If they enter the country illegally, if their first act is one of in-your-face criminality, why would it be in the interests of “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” to spend untold millions deciding which of the lawbreakers are to be admitted and then caring for them after they are?

It’s not like all options for lawful entry have been closed off to “asylum seekers” – they’re just being manipulated by open borders subversives to create an incident at the expense of both exploited foreigners and national sovereignty.

“Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said asylum claims will be resolved ‘efficiently and expeditiously’ but said the asylum-seekers should seek it in the first safe country they reach, including Mexico,” the AP report notes.

Yeah. Once they’re in Mexico, which chose to admit them, they can go to the consulate and make their case. Not that once they’re in a “safe” country they really have one.  Trying to pressure and embarrass us, Mexico created this problem. They should be made to own it.

There are other dynamics in play here as well.  If simply being impoverished and living in primitive squalor and tyranny qualifies someone to come here, we need to open our doors to billions from around the world, just to be logically consistent. That’ll suit just fine “no-brainers” Blair Overstreet and Matt Dunn (quoted in the LA Times report), who are eager to open their apartment to a “refugee.”.

Not that most of the transplants will have private accommodations offered. And that, of course, will swamp the lifeboat and we’ll soon all be one big Third World hell hole — with the exception of our elite globalist rulers. And wait ‘til you get a load of their “commonsense guns safety laws.”

That will be OK for those with an alien understanding of the relationship between people and government. Having demonstrated their utter inability at self rule in their native land, they’re here to overwhelm us with their “diverse” ways. And those of us who resist will be branded intolerant, xenophobes, haters…

Which makes it fair to ask if we’re so evil, why are they running toward us rather than away from us?

It’s also fair to ask if “refugees” won’t stand fight for their country, what makes anyone think they’ll stand and fight for ours? In truth, they don’t have to. The oath for naturalized citizens was changed three years ago to where they no longer be expected to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” or “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.”

Let the country continue to be swarmed and Balkanized, and we may find no such aversion to bearing arms against the United States.

Also see: How Will Mass ‘Migrant’ Crossing Not Be an Unprovoked Foreign Attack?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post ‘Caravan’ a Deliberate Attempt to Exploit U.S. Laws and Undermine National Sovereignty appeared first on Oath Keepers.

How Will Mass ‘Migrant’ Crossing Not Be an Unprovoked Foreign Attack?

“Somos Resistencia…” Just what we need — foreign nationals who say they’re dissatisified with their culture to come here and “resist” ours. The world has seen the raised fist before and it’s never stood for American freedom. (Pueblos Sin Fronteras/Facebook)

“Migrant ‘caravan’ at U.S.-Mexico border prepares for mass crossing,” Reuters reported Thursday. “Hundreds of Central American migrants from a caravan that crossed Mexico reunited in Tijuana on Wednesday and planned to cross the border together this weekend in defiance of threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to repel them.”

If allowed to happen, the criminal invasion – and ultimately that’s what it is – will be a direct result of a chain of circumstances aided and abetted by the Mexican government in violation of its own laws.  Mexican law requires foreign nationals be in their country legally and that their presence be beneficial. It is a criminal offense there to aid and abet illegal immigration.

Pueblo sin Fronteras, coordinator of the “caravan,” solicits donations via Paypal but is not listed as a nonprofit on Guidestar. It does not show up on the California Secretary of State business search (Paypal locates them in La Crescenta). Its website domain registrar is hidden behind a proxy. To find out more, we can turn to supportive ”mainstream”  puff pieces, or alternatively, to sites alleging indirect Soros ties.

The other and more significant player on the U.S. side of the border is the state of California, with its sanctuary policies and its opposition to federal enforcement efforts. What happens if leftist federal judges on the 9th Circuit issue an injunction forbidding enforcement? What the options will there be if the state decides to intervene with more than rhetoric?

Chances are this will play out for the cameras and be exploited to feed a meme that further smears those opposed to open borders as violent xenophobes and racists. There are those who wouldn’t mind at all if this results in a bit of for-the-cameras violence — or more than a bit.

Global humanitarian crises will not be solved by subverting U.S. law and culturally terraforming the Republic. But the “organizers” have brought things to the point where an honest, humane desire to solve the plight of such people is used against those who would help, meaning there are those who are cynically exploiting “refugee” pawns and domestic useful idiots to advance a political agenda.

The government of Mexico knows this, and there need to be serious repercussions taken against the ungrateful, in-bed-with-the-cartels officials if they force this on us. They need us a lot more than we need them.

More importantly, this country needs to start acting like one.  But the differences between open borders subversives and political opportunist /cheap labor sellouts vs. Americans who want their country back are irreconcilable.

A rational U.S. policy for admitting foreign nationals could not be simpler: Look to the Preamble to the Constitution.  If government policy — on anything — fails to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” then government is violating “the supreme Law of the Land.”

If oath-breaking representatives weren’t ignoring and subverting the Second Amendment every chance they get, we’d have the border problem pretty much solved peaceably via “a well regulated militia” standing guard to discourage and deter things getting out of hand:

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.”

But that’s the last thing those who would fundamentally transform the Republic want to see happen, with “the security of a free State” via an armed citizen populace being the thing they fear most.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post How Will Mass ‘Migrant’ Crossing Not Be an Unprovoked Foreign Attack? appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Daughter of ‘Immigrant’ from Castro’s Cuba Calls for Confiscation of U.S. Guns

And if some of us say “No”…?

One of Parkland’s teenage gun-grabbers, Emma González, has called for ‘[r]emoving the assault and semi-automatic weapons from our Civilian society, instituting thorough background checks and mandatory waiting periods (and raising the buying age and banning the production of high-capacity magazines” via a Sunday tweet.

She’s received 30.000 “likes” from her useful idiot followers for that as of this writing. So much for no one is talking about taking anyone’s guns.

She was following up on another tweet commenting on Sunday’s Waffle House shooting, where someone authorities had already confiscated guns from had no problem going on a shooting rampage.

“The local police say a man at the scene wrestled his gun away – looks like you don’t need to arm a teacher (or a resource officer) to stop a shooting,” González opined. “There goes the sales pitch for @SmithWessonCorp.”

Well hell. There goes the argument for armed police and armed soldiers, too.

Leave it to Opposite Day “progressives” to hail such immature naiveté, not to mention bad manners, as wisdom and visionary leadership. Fortunately, the louder and more obnoxious these armband-wearing children get, the more people are noting the reality about them – as opposed to their media-managed image.

All those in favor of Cuban-style citizen disarmament, raise your right hand!

Here’s the thing about this González ingrate – her father came here ostensibly seeking more freedom than he had in Castro’s Cuba, the communist tyrant who, upon winning power with guns, disarmed those not acting as enforcers for his regime with the chilling question:

¿Armas para que?

And she demands our disarmament while wearing a Cuban flag.

And if our answer is “No? Your move?”

Here’s a question for González and the rest of her band of Time Magazine cover “honorees” demanding Americans surrender what founder Tench Coxe (whom they probably were never taught about in History class) called “the birthright of an American”:

How many citizens who refuse to disarm are you willing to see agents of the state kill in order to impose your demands?

Any bets there aren’t those who would respond “All of you”…?  And that any less than that wouldn’t be “Enough“?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Daughter of ‘Immigrant’ from Castro’s Cuba Calls for Confiscation of U.S. Guns appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Capture the Flag and Send a Message to Your Representative

This is not a message my gun-grabbing Congressthing wanted to promote…

April 19 is, among other things, Patriots’ Day. Of particular significance were the Battles of Lexington and Concord. Whenever this day comes around, it reminds me of a project from two decades ago that allowed me to make a statement of defiance to a gun-grabbing politician and get a valued souvenir in the bargain.

This is a project I did several years ago that I’ve written about a few times over the years–I resurrect it from time to time because I believe it makes a good statement of defiance, plus most of you have probably never seen it.

My U.S. Representative at the time, Jane Harman, was one of the most anti-gun members of Congress. Holding press conferences with Sarah Brady to promote more citizen disarmament (where I was threatened with arrest for asking a question), she campaigned on the slogan “I wear my opposition [to believers in the Second Amendment] like a badge of honor.”

So why in the world did I send her a check? And why do I encourage all RKBA supporters to follow suit with their own representative, especially if they’re oath-breaking gun-grabbers?

One of the constituent services that Congress provides to “We the People” is a program which lets you fly a commemorative flag over the nation’s Capitol building. For a nominal fee (I paid about thirteen bucks at the time) you can specify one of a couple different flag sizes and materials, the date you want your flag flown, and why you are flying it.

I asked for my flag to be flown on April 19 with the notation:

“In tribute to the Citizen Patriots of Lexington and Concord who resisted confiscation of their armaments on this date in 1775, and in continued defiance of all who would infringe on the Right of the People to keep and bear arms.”

I can think of many other dedications, such as “In loving memory of the children of Mount Carmel,” or “For Vicki and Sammy Weaver,” or numerous other events warranting commemoration. I’m sure you can, too.

Whether your Representative chooses to process the orders or return them, a point will have been made (and I’m still not clear what their options are for refusing to do so, and it could even be the basis for further exposure, possibly up to and including legal action).

Anybody unfortunate enough to live under Nancy Pelosi’s gun-grabbing tyranny? $19 is the least expensive flag you can get, and note selecting “Customize” and “additonal text” lets you append personalized sentiments to the preset “Dedication Message.” Now the question becomes “Will she?”

It can be a powerful point. Their choice will be to fly our flags in defiance of their statist policies, or to create a public record of suppressing alternative political sentiments. And it will either cost you nothing, or, for a nominal price you’ll get a beautiful flag and a commemorative certificate signed by the Architect of the Capitol (and hopefully, yours won’t misspell “armaments.”)

You’ll also have the satisfaction of knowing that you sent your Congressthing a strong, no-compromise statement of principle, and maybe even made him or her squirm. Why not contact your Representative, send in an order form and fly a flag for freedom?

If anyone tries this and get rejected, please forward, copy or take a screenshot of the refusal to let me know.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Capture the Flag and Send a Message to Your Representative appeared first on Oath Keepers.

NJ Sheriff and Former Chief Show Contempt for Oaths with 2nd Amendment Infringements

Sheriff Saudino insists men like those he controls should be the “Only Ones” allowed to have “weapons [that] are designed to take out mass amounts of people…” (Bergen County Sheriff’s Office/Facebook photos)

Extensive quotes from two New Jersey law enforcement officials leave little doubt that they would gladly support any and all citizen disarmament edicts. Opinions expressed by Bergen County Sheriff Michael Saudino and former Tenafly Police Chief Michael Bruno in Monday’s Pascack Press appear representative of predominant command attitudes in the Garden State. (Note the story is not online so there is no link to offer—I was sent a photo of the April 16 page 3 story “Mental health ‘highest priority’ for public, school safety” written by Michael Olohan. I have not received a response from the paper to an inquiry I sent them yesterday. This post will be updated if a link becomes available. )

Sheriff Saudino says it’s “fortunate” that New Jersey has draconian infringements and hopes to see them become a “model” for the rest of the country. And naturally, he repeats the same lie many prominent gun-grabbers offer while they’re doing the direct opposite of what they say.

“I don’t say it very often, but I do believe in the Second Amendment,” Saudino protests.  “However…”

Who didn’t see that huge, in-your-face “but” coming?

He doesn’t think the “average person” should have the very weaponry the Second Amendment is supposed to guarantee. To underscore his point, Saudino smears those who disagree as “the NRA and some gun nuts.” And here’s the kicker, a talking point getting moldy it’s growing so stale:

“Those weapons are designed to take out mass amounts of people, for the military to use, for the police to use, should they have to…”

First of all, both the military and Saudino’s tactical police teams have access to full auto. And note he doesn’t define when his sworn duties will require him to issue them orders to “take out mass amounts of people.”

If taken literally, and I would, the oath-breaking maniac is talking about making war on American citizens. Naturally he doesn’t want those who would defy tyranny also being able to resist it.

Former Chief Bruno, no longer in a position to actively take anyone’s guns, has his own way of harassing edict-abiding gun owners.  He wants gun-grabber sympathizers to “contact their local police chiefs and ask to see the firearm files of legitimate registered gun owners in town.

“The hot topic today is guns,” Bruno asserts. “Everybody’s talking about guns, restricting guns, eliminating guns, taking guns.”

Wait a minute – for years the antis have been calling gun owners paranoid, insisting “No wants to take your guns.” Does this mean they were lying?

That was a rhetorical question. And Bruno ignores that some of us are talking about protecting our guns.

“I guarantee you it will be an eye-opener for you, because when you talk about that person who snaps and can go right into their own home, take a weapon go out and do something with it—you have hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of guns in your communities,” he bemoans, insulting citizen trustworthiness by insinuation while being part of a system that protects and rewards enforcer misdeeds.

Like the problems come from “legitimate registered gun owners” who strive to comply with all prior restraint mandates, no matter how offensively oppressive.

Still, in order to keep their lucrative double-dipping gigs going, New Jersey sheriffs like Saudino need to sell out their countrymen and parrot the narrative expected by their masters. Besides, he and Bruno are taken care of as LEOSA beneficiaries, “eligible to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States or United States Territories, regardless of state or local laws…”

It’s the “Only Ones” loophole. They have their seat at the table, so why should they care if you’re outside looking in. Still, Mr. Mason’s “except for a few public officers” observation comes to mind.

The sad thing is it hasn’t always been that way, even in New Jersey. Those of us who have been around a while well remember this 1993 quote from the testimony of Trenton Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.”

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

 

The post NJ Sheriff and Former Chief Show Contempt for Oaths with 2nd Amendment Infringements appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Trump Anti-Gun Nominee to Ninth Circuit Driving Away Core Supporters

Really? I’m not even sure we have one in Fairfax.

“Democrats praise Trump nominee for 9th Circuit,” The Washington Times reported Wednesday. “Republicans raise critical questions on his gun rights, Citizens United views.”

“Republicans brought the tough questions for Mark Jeremy Bennett over his defense of gun control laws and free speech rights,” the report elaborates. “Mr. Bennett, a former Hawaii attorney general now nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, had backed a limited interpretation of Second Amendment rights that was overturned by the Supreme Court.”

Just being a highly-placed Hawaiian political nominee ought to raise red flags. The state is a “leader” in citizen disarmament. If they ever do have another real catastrophe there, most citizens are going to find out how badly those who have been defrauding them of their birthrights have screwed them.

Add to that the fact that the Ninth Circuit, widely recognized as one of the most “progressive” (read “anti-gun”) courts, recently lost the one sane voice it had on the Second Amendment with the #MeToo-pressured resignation of Judge Alex Kozinski.

Trump, who started out with a troubling record on guns, “rehabilitated” his public stand enough to win NRA’s endorsement. In recent months, however, he has revealed himself to be all about infringements (often with a green light from NRA). His so-called “bump stock” ban in reality dictates unprecedented non-negotiable terms of surrender from the executive branch. If Trump and AG Jeff Sessions can get away with this naked usurpation, guess what the Democrats will be able to pull, especially if enough feckless Republicans take the fire out of their core supporter’s bellies and majorities flip.

And that’s what the president is doing by ignoring the concerns of his core constituency of gun owners who put him in power and expect him to take the oath he swore seriously. We’ve seen the disaster Republican presidential appointments of bad judges has caused in the past, and especially with the anti-gun feeding frenzy we see today, now is no time to put a squish on the federal bench.

It’s fair to ask why those who have been defending the president from so many self-inflicted situations he now finds himself in should care if Robert Mueller and “the Swamp” prevail.  A President Mike Pence could do no worse and possibly would do a lot better, especially considering his record on guns.

The president needs all the friends he can get right now. He needs to be reminded of that. Assuming there’s not some other agenda at play here.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Trump Anti-Gun Nominee to Ninth Circuit Driving Away Core Supporters appeared first on Oath Keepers.

It’s Getting Harder for Democrats to Deny They’re the Party of Flat-Out Citizen Disarmament

The historically ignorant have no idea what they’re really demanding. Those manipulating them understand perfectly.

“Karen Carter Peterson, chair of the Louisiana Democratic Party, has distinguished herself as the highest-profile Democrat in the country to outright call for a repeal of the Second Amendment,” The Advocate notes. “Last week, Peterson sent out a tweet with the words, ‘Repeal the Second Amendment.’ The tweet also linked to a New York Times column by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, arguing for a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

First of all, Peterson is more than a state politico. She’s Vice Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.

As for Stevens, his arguments fall apart simply by comparing them to what the Founders and past Supreme Court rulings have said. And while Stevens was a Republican nominee, he was not the first such “GOP justice” who betrayed the expectations of those who appointed him. William Brennan, Earl Warren, Warren Burger and David Souter all come to mind — because they acted more like Democrats.

When it comes to guns, depriving the people of, as the Miller Court put it, “ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense,” and of what Tench Coxe called “the birthright of an American,” is part of the Democrat Party platform. Those “weapons of war” they want to ban (along with a host of other prior restraint infringements) are precisely what we’re entitled to have for reasons the Founders made clear.

There’s a federal so-called “assault weapon” ban out there that Democrat oath-breaker David Cicilline of Rhode Island has been trying to force down our throats for several years now—fortunately, it has never had more than a one percent chance of enactment, but significantly, it has gained 175 co-sponsors, all of them Democrats.

But what about so-called “pro-gun Democrats”? I maintain there is no such thing. Sure, you’ll get politicians in hunting country who appeal to the sport shooter crowd and have to vote a certain way in order to get elected—the Party allows for that so it can increase its power and influence and advance other agenda items. But when you get right down to it, not a one of them will oppose a nominee like Obama or Hillary for president or Sotomayor or Kagan for the Supreme Court, they all support the cultural terraforming of the country in order to gain Democrat voters, and they’ll even betray constituents on guns when it suits their purposes.

Remember A-rated “pro-gun Democrat” and gopher hunter Jon Tester? Remember what this phony “champion of the right to bear arms said when he sided with Bloomberg’s Everytown to deny “allowing” peaceable American gun owners to lawfully carry their firearms when doing business with post offices?

Or here’s another one: Chris Coster, whose “proven record of defending the Second Amendment” evidently included shilling for Hillary and rolling over for Obama executive orders on guns. And don’t get me started on “proven champion of the Second Amendment” Harry Reid, Joe Manchin, Kirsten Gillibrand…

I could do this all day. The ones who should have to are the paid staffers at NRA who convinced their members to vote for these frauds.

Admittedly, there is no shortage of Republican turncoats (and let’s not forget that neocon George Will called for repeal decades ago). When I see them, I call them out. No matter how high up the food chain. That’s why I recommend never donating to the party, but only to individual candidates who have proven they mean what they say. By and large, when there’s a major push for citizen disarmament, the Republicans need to be managed to keep the herd from spooking and bolting, but the Democrats are the ones trying to start the stampede.

And their constituents are fine with that. Hell, they demand it.

“The vast majority of Democrats also support banning all semi-automatic weapons,” National Review reports. “More than a third of the Democratic party would do away with the Second Amendment [and] Democrats are evenly split on banning all handguns (including revolvers) except those carried by law enforcement.”

And that in turn “inspires” the media to offer advocacy essays like “Repeal the Second Amendment” and “More Democrats Should Be Calling for the Repeal of the Second Amendment.”

“Progressives” who haven’t thought through the logistics and the resistance that trying it would spawn evidently believe it’s simply a matter of getting enough votes.

“It’s not a crazy idea,” Christopher M. Norwood, J.D., Spokesman for the Democratic Black Caucus of Florida and a Democratic Executive Committee Member for Miami-Dade County insists.

Sure it is, Chris. You just haven’t thought it through.

None of them have, because a repeal would not eradicate what the Heller court and the Cruikshank court before it recognized as a preexisting right, and some who view it as such will not go gentle into that good night.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post It’s Getting Harder for Democrats to Deny They’re the Party of Flat-Out Citizen Disarmament appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Republican Governor’s Betrayal in Vermont Shows How Public Ignorance Lets Practiced Liars Say Anything

Time was Vermont produced men like Ethan Allen, who had a differrent response for tyrants than obeying them. (1875 engraving depicting the capture of Fort Ticonderoga by Ethan Allen on May 10, 1775)

1,200 standard capacity 30-round magazines from MAGPUL Industries were supplied free-of-charge courtesy RECOIL magazine to Vermont gun owners in a protest operation appropriately called the “Green Mountain Airlift.” The magazines were distributed Saturday to gun owner rights demonstrators at the statehouse in Montpelier in anticipation of the governor signing a law banning them.

They were protesting bans on magazines, bans on rate-enhancing devices, bans on selling guns to citizens under 21, the end of private sales, due-process trampling confiscation orders, and more proposed infringements in the wings.

Mike Vanderboegh had an answer for those who would ban tools tyrants didn’t want their subjects to have.

Magazines owned before their banning will be “grandfathered,” although how that can be reliably verified is unclear. The giveaway is reminiscent of civil disobedience actions conducted by my late friend and colleague Mike Vanderboegh, although he smuggled ammunition and magazines into states (and sent to oath-breakers governing them) where band had been enacted as acts of defiance against edicts seen as unconstitutional and tyrannical:

“But even before the shot heard ’round the world, the colonists understood their weaknesses and their military needs and did something about it. They smuggled. They smuggled Dutch gunpowder and French flints. They smuggled tents and uniform cloth and artillery and ammunition. Boston was the high headquarters of anti-British smuggling and John Hancock was its prime minister. Connecticut was a small empire built on patriotic smuggling. The colonists knew what to do and they did it, regardless of the risk — regardless of all the King’s ministers and the King’s soldiery. They defied the King. They resisted his edicts. They evaded his laws and they smuggled. Lord above, did they smuggle.”

That’s part of the “I will not comply” paradigm popularized by Thoreau, and still available as a form of nullification for when all “legal” means of redress have been closed off from complying with a higher law, “the supreme Law of the Land.” It’s no different, morally, from refusing to obey edicts requiring firearms be surrendered, or disobeying orders to do the confiscation.

The real lawbreaking comes from those who would pass and enforce such totalitarian edicts under color of authority. And in this case, the villain is “Republican” Governor Phil Scott, who says he has “every intention of signing it.”

“What’s being passed at this point in time doesn’t intrude on the Second Amendment,” Scott flat-out lied. “It doesn’t take away their guns, and I believe that we will get accustomed to the new normal.”

How the fork-tongued weasel-worder figures these aren’t infringements is not stated. Of course they are, and the magazine limitation is a direct assault on Founding intent – as recognized by the Supreme Court — that the people have a right to “arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time [and] the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear … ordinary military equipment … that … could contribute to the common defense.”

As for this being “the new normal,” it won’t be for long. Once these points have been surrendered, the gun-grabbers will be back for more, and then there will be a new “new normal” – all the way down the “slippery slope” until the collectivists are ready to try for their end game, as treasonous ex- Supreme Court “Justice” John Paul Stevens made clear.

The new normal will be a monopoly of violence, exactly what the Founders opposed.

Time was, Vermont was the gold standard for the right to keep and bear arms, being relatively free of infringements to the point where permitless carry was once dubbed “Vermont carry.” Like everything else they touch, “progressives” in the state can’t resist tampering with freedom and imposing their obsession with control over everything.  This was, after all, the state that gave “us” the out-and-out national socialist Bernie Sanders for a presidential candidate.

It’s fair to wonder what Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys citizen militia would make of the mostly ungrateful and oblivious beneficiaries of the sacrifices they made to win liberty from despots.  Allen, too, was once declared an outlaw by a tyrannical governor for his acts of defiance.

I have a feeling Scott wouldn’t want to open the door.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Republican Governor’s Betrayal in Vermont Shows How Public Ignorance Lets Practiced Liars Say Anything appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Citibank Promotes ‘Former’ Violent Crack Dealer and ‘Gun Criminal’ while Imposing Restrictions on Law-Abiding

It all depends on which values it’s in Citi’s financial interests to promote.

A recent “tweet” by Citibank promotes using its credit card to purchase tickets for “entertainers” Jay-Z’s and Beyonce’s OTR II tour.

“Oh ok i get it Citi promotes these entertainers that show GUNS, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, REAL RACISM, VIOLENCE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE DEVIL in their videos but will NOT allow cardholders to buy guns,” Twitter user “Slowride” tweeted in reply. “CITIBANK just signed their own death warrant. #boycottciti.”

He’s referring, of course, to Citibank’s unwarranted attack on gun owners and the firearms industry by requiring businesses to discriminate against gun to lawful customers under 21, and barring the sale of so-called “bump stocks” and standard capacity magazines. Further, the global banking giant signaled its intent to drag manufacturers into its citizen disarmament schemes.

It’s a part of a wider wishful call being explored and exploited by gun grabbers to have the financial industry regulate where government has not — and antitrust laws against collusion apparently be damned if “progressives” who enacted them in the first place have their way. This revival of credit restrictions is a continuation of discriminatory practices that began years ago, when credit card reader companies like The Square started forbidding ““payments in connection with … sales of firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury.”

For their parts, Bank  of America is “reaching out to clients that manufacture assault weapons for non-military use ‘to understand what they can contribute to this shared responsibility,’” and Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan tried to straddle both sides of the issue.

“I don’t know if banks or credit card companies or any other financial institution should be the arbiter of what an American can buy,” he offered, rather than flat-out admitting of course they shouldn’t.

Citgroup, though, especially chafes, and particularly after being bailed out by “the government” to the tune of $15 billion. What better way to thank Americans than by attacking the rights of the law-abiding?

There are reasons why some of us who have our firearms purchases choices denied by corporate parasites find Citibank’s promotion of Jay-Z so hypocritical:

“Before making it big, Jay-Z was a crack dealer in Brooklyn at the age of 13 … When he was 12, he shot his 16-year-old brother and he stabbed a record producer in December 1999. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation for the assault. Jay was even shot three times while growing up.”

At least nowadays there’s no need for Jay-Z to take matters into his own hands. His “heavily armed” bodyguards can protect him and his family everywhere, even in places you can’t even bring, let alone carry your gun, like New York City.

“Ordinary” Citibank customers and low-level employees are another story…

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Citibank Promotes ‘Former’ Violent Crack Dealer and ‘Gun Criminal’ while Imposing Restrictions on Law-Abiding appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Sheriff Candidate Jokes about Killing Defiant Gun Owners to Delight of Bloomberg Moms

“You’ve heard people say ‘You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands.’ OK.” Buncombe County Sheriff candidate R. Daryl Fisher.

“On Wednesday March 7, 2018, I was asked to address a group in West Asheville and relay information as it pertains to current gun legislation in NC.,” Buncombe County Sheriff candidate R. Daryl Fisher told visitors to his campaign Facebook page. “I took this opportunity to relay proposals on what I believe to be sensible gun legislation.

“A group”?  Why not just come out and say it was Michaels Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action?

“As a candidate for Sheriff, I cannot enact legislation,” Fisher goes on to deflect. “If elected Sheriff I cannot enact legislation. But as a candidate for Sheriff, I can propose what I believe to be sensible gun legislation. It is up to our legislators to determine what becomes law.”

What he’s obscuring is that law enforcement officials can be extremely influential in persuading lawmakers to act, and as sheriff, he would enthusiastically enforce citizen disarmament edicts. That he would take an oath to the Constitution seems not to trouble Fisher, as there are evidently no citizen disarmament laws he would refuse to issue to his subordinates or to obey himself.

He would enthusiastically enforce forbidding citizens old enough to serve in the military or the “unorganized militia” of U.S. Code from purchasing guns. He would ban standard capacity magazines for everyone (except the “Only Ones”), along with any firearm that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

How far would he go?

“There is one statement that many up to now have taken offense to,” Fisher notes, getting to the reason he felt compelled to post a Facebook clarification. “That statement starts out with language similar to, ‘Don’t believe the scare tactics,’ and I say that some gun enthusiast might say, ‘You will have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands.’

“This is also a movie quote. The crowd laughed and I made a joke. I admit the joke was a mistake and I should not have joked.”

He’s glossing it over. He’s taking heat because his “joke” involved killing gun owners who would not surrender their firearms. What good would the Second Amendment be if we did? See for yourself at @3:00 into the following video:

“What about people that already had weapons? Well, I’m gonna tell you now, don’t buy into the scare tactics, don’t believe the scare tactics, because you’ve heard people say ‘You’ll have to pry my guns from my cold dead hands,’” Fischer admonished.

“OK, he grinned and shrugged to delighted laughter and applause of the Bloomberg Moms.

So don’t believe your lying eyes and ears?

Fisher goes on to trivialize that “joke” by saying taking guns “would be unconstitutional because that would constitute what is called an ex post facto law” and that “responsible gun owners have nothing to worry about.”

What he’s not saying is that edicts could be passed, as they have in California, requiring gun owners to register the firearms he wants to see banned, and anyone who does not comply will be “fair game” for his shrug and “OK.” He also supports other prior restraint edicts that could order guns removed from citizens who have not been convicted of any crime. And face it, any official who would willingly and forcefully violate the Second Amendment is hardly a trustworthy arbiter of what’s Constitutional.

“Being downright rude, making false statements, making half-truths or being utterly disrespectful is unacceptable,” Fisher protests, like he’s the injured party, before urging voters to “properly voice your opinion … on election day.”

They will and whomever they pick will be predictably big on “gun control. ”  Fisher’s one of three Democrat candidates out of a field of seven, Buncombe County “is the only Democratic bastion in western North Carolina” and it went big for both Obama and Hillary.

They’ll be “OK” with a badged gun-grabber.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Sheriff Candidate Jokes about Killing Defiant Gun Owners to Delight of Bloomberg Moms appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Congressional Art Contest a Way for Young People to Send Politicians a Message

This was Maxine Waters’ submitted student entry for 2016, so the competiton didn’t always nix political preferences, at least if the theme favored “progressive” ideology. [Congressional Art Competition]

“The 2018 Congressional Art Competition has officially begun!” an email from my congressman announces. “This is always such a great opportunity to showcase the artistic talent in the district.

“The competition is open to all high school students in the district,” he explains. “Each student is allowed to enter up to four pieces of artwork … The 1st place winner piece will hang in the United States Capitol and the other winners are hung in my Congressional Offices.”

Here’s the website where you can learn more and find out how your young student can participate, assuming they’re not part of the Everytown and Planned Parenthood-sponsored #Marx for Our Lives mobs this weekend.

I’ve written about this before, back when California Rep. Maxine Waters was promoting an idealized student portrait evocative of Barack Obama. Since then, they’ve added some rules, which, if you think about it (and to nobody’s surprise), are probably unconstitutional, seeing as how this is a fegov project designed to enhance the rep’s political standing as a provider of subsidized benefits with his or her (or zir?) constituents:

“Artwork must adhere to the policy of the House Office Building Commission (the Commission). In accordance with this policy, exhibits depicting subjects of contemporary political controversy or a sensationalistic or gruesome nature are not allowed.”

OK, so a picture of an AR-15 with the words “MOLON LABE!” is probably out. And even with Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald, chances are anything specifially Second Amendment-related would get the boot. Even though you and I might not find it “controversial,” the court was divided five to four in each case. Hell, let’s just stipulate all the lies and manipulation have succeeded in creating an unbridgeable gulf between those demanding citizen disarmament and those who believe the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

OK, so how close to the edge can a kid get? What about a poster celebrating citizen resistance to tyranny at Lexington and Concord? How is that controversial to any but America’s enemies?

Or get away from guns and militias altogether. It would be instructive to see contest teachers, judges or polticians nix a celebration of the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights. Freedom of religion ought to also be safe,at least for some — my bet is no one would challenge a picture of a woman in a hijab and the caption “Our diversity is our strength.” It would also be fun to take a poke at the “safe spacers” with a “freedom of speech” entry. Or how about artwork commending keeping the oath of office?

True, in the scheme of things this is small potatoes, but not every advocacy effort need be big and important, and who knows? Seeing something that reflects traditional American freedoms rejected because it offends some repressive social justice warrior’s sensitivities might generate attention. It could also help others see how the vision that was once America has been perverted by those naively entrusted to be its leaders.

With the only voices from young people given media exposure being those demanding that government abridge liberty, you and your children might be in a position to help show that some still believe in the vision of the Founders.

If they like the idea – and that’s important, as we should leave the ideological pressuring of children to the Bloombergians and the Bodysnatchers, here’s how they can enter:

1. Contact your representative to confirm your district’s participation and obtain specific guidance.


2. Review the 2018 Rules for Students and Teachers.


3. Complete the 2018 Student Release Form.


4. Submit the Student Release Form and any other required materials to your representative by the deadline specified on their website.

If they do enter, please let us know how things went.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Congressional Art Contest a Way for Young People to Send Politicians a Message appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Pima Sheriff Claims ‘Only Ones’ Status to Nix Arming Teachers

“Experienced – Educated – Professional”: Per “Only One” Mark Napier, he is, but you’re not and can’t be.

“Governor Ducey, in reaction to the recent school shooting in Florida, has declared the need to ‘do something’ in Arizona,” an alert from Arizona Citizens Defense League warns. “Unfortunately, his solution appears to be to resurrect proposed restrictions on your rights in bills that have already failed in the legislature. In particular, it looks like Governor Ducey will propose cherry picking bad ideas found in legislation that calls for the criminalization of the transfer of private property (your firearms) and the ability of your family members to have your firearms confiscated for ‘mental health’ reasons. All these proposals are aimed at punishing you for violent acts committed by others. None of them address the issue of why kids today feel empowered to kill their classmates.”

Their concerns are not without foundation.

“With backing of Governor Ducey, Arizona could be on verge of stricter gun laws,” AZCentral reports:

“If we can prevent it and use the power of the office and the law… that’s what we’re going to do and I intend to do it,” Ducey said during the interview on KTAR (92.3 FM). “I think we need to act in those situations.”

What they have no intention of doing is arming teachers, as Pima County Sheriff Mark Napier made clear:

“The Sheriff says he and Governor Ducey feel it’s not practical to arm teachers because they’d have to become as well trained as deputies.”

It’s fair to ask how “well trained” that is, especially since it’s the most common excuse given to disparage armed citizens and defer to the superior skills and judgment of the “Only Ones.”  Those familiar with that term know it originated with a now-“classic” video of DEA agent Lee Paige telling a classroom full of students he was “the only one in this room professional enough, that I know of,” to carry a gun, and then promptly shooting himself in the foot when he then tried to holster his sidearm.

With the understanding that no one is expecting to turn teachers into Tier 1 SMUs, what are the requirements for one of Sheriff Napier’s deputies to establish firearms competence to where they are trusted to carry a gun in public as part of their job duties?

“Commissioned members must qualify annually, at minimum, with a weapons system intended for on-duty use on a Department-approved firearms qualification course and must meet all Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training (AZ POST) firearms qualification requirements,”  Pima County Sheriff’s Department General Order 2015-003 mandates.

Once a year for “each weapon system used in an official capacity”? And  how many tries do they get?

“Members shall be allowed up to two (2) attempts to qualify on their initial qualification date. In the event of two (2) failures on the initial qualification date, the member shall be rescheduled by PRTC staff to return to the range, within five (5) business days, for an additional qualification attempt.”

OK, and what is it they get three tries to do?

Assuming we’re talking handguns, there is a revolver course you can check out, but for our purposes, let’s assume semi-automatic handguns are the more likely choice.

50 shots on TQ-19 andTQ-21 targets? Timed stages at 25 (seven rounds), 15 (12 rounds), seven (19 rounds) and three (12 rounds) yards? Shooters have to manage their ammunition and perform a few reloading/malfunction drills? “Five points for shots within the designated scoring area (center of mass or head)” and a minimum of 210 points out of 250 maximum? So basically they get three chances to get a “B” and there’s nothing to stop those with the initiative from doing as much practice as they need in advance?

Does anyone here know anyone who does not have a badge but who  is nonetheless capable of meeting these requirements? Or capable of learning how to?

As an aside, the next time some smug hoplophobe tells you citizens shouldn’t carry because police are trained, test them to see if they know what they’re talking about.

Oh, but officers get other training? And the rest of us don’t or can’t?

Isn’t this a perfect opportunity for the sheriff and the governor and the legislature and other LEO officials to help with training and community outreach to enhance “the security of a free state,” and to support the Constitution the way their oath requires them to do?

Instead of just acting like “ordinary” citizens – and teachers at that – are too ignorant, intemperate and unskilled to be trusted to keep and bear arms, and like that’s a task best left to professional “Only Ones”… ?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Pima Sheriff Claims ‘Only Ones’ Status to Nix Arming Teachers appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Iranian Tyrant Calls for Disarming Americans

Where have we seen THAT salute before? And notice that’s not the hand he eats with. (The Office of the “Supreme Leader”)

“Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei slammed President Trump and Congress on social media Sunday for not daring to stand up to the gun lobby and introduce a nationwide ban on all firearms,” the Washington Examiner, among others, reports. “No one dares apply the clear solution to the promotion of guns and homicide in America. What’s the solution? It’s to make guns illegal.”

There’s a reason why “no one dares.” It’s because no one can, and if they tried they’d find there are personal repercussions for trying. It’s why domestic enemies do their subversion incrementally, advancing a little bit at a time down a “slippery slope” they used to ridicule but now at least some of their addled and judgment impaired “leaders” admit to.

But Iran’s “supreme leader” knows that, which is why the Islamic Republic maintains tight controls on “civilian” guns, with their ownership not guaranteed by law and allowances regulated by the Islamic Consultative Assembly. And while many of their edicts such as licensing and registration mirror the wish list being pushed by our “progressive” totalitarian lobby, domestic gun-grabbers are silent on just who Khameni and his cult followers use their monopoly of violence to suppress, persecute and kill:

“Death sentences in Iran are, in theory, legal for many different crimes, such as armed robbery, treason, espionage, murder, certain military offenses, drug trafficking, rape, pedophilia, sodomy, sexual misconduct, incestuous relations, fornication, homosexuality, prostitution, plotting to overthrow the Islamic regime, political dissidence, sabotage, apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, producing and publishing pornography, burglary, recidivist consumption of alcohol, recidivist theft, rebellion, some economic crimes, kidnapping, terrorism and few others.”

We’d probably lose half our “commonsense gun safety law advocates” if we did that here. And they wouldn’t much care for the way they’d be forcibly checked out: Hanging, firing squad, stoning and falling from heights.

Iran has one other “gun law” that can only be enforced by those who enjoy unchallengeable power:

“Upon learning of his son’s death, the elder Mr. Alipour was told the family had to pay an equivalent of $3,000 as a ‘bullet fee’—a fee for the bullet used by security forces—before taking the body back, relatives said.”

And talk about “for the children”—to their credit, at least the Iranians hang theirs, instead of mixing “kids and guns.” Those are reserved for deployment as child soldiers.

As long as Ayatollah Khameini is calling for gun laws in our country, turnabout seems fair play and there’s no logical or moral reason why I can’t do the same for his: I call on the people of Iran to ignore totalitarian citizen disarmament edicts and overthrow your evil, bloody-handed oppressors.

There is one gun law I do recommend keeping: Charge their (surviving)  families for the bullets.

In the mean time, you’ll note no one whom the regime can touch dares post a reply telling this fanatical authoritarian son of dogs to boro be jahanam (look it up). They don’t recognize a right to free speech over there either, because no one is in a position to make them.

It would be fair to ask how many of those who “liked” and “retweeted this are regime lickspittles and how many are simply “progressive” hive insect dolts.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Iranian Tyrant Calls for Disarming Americans appeared first on Oath Keepers.