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.

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.

‘Sadistic Guard’ Story Hints at Why Rights Enforcement Has Never Been More Needed

Who believes it will forever be impossible for such enforcers to exist in America? Who thinks there aren’t armed government enforcers here now who would do the same if so ordered? (Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – Photo from Jürgen Stroop Report to Heinrich Himmler from May 1943. The original German caption reads: “Forcibly pulled out of dug-outs.”)

“A sadistic prison officer who has cost New York State $877,637 in legal payouts over assault and sex harassment allegations is now under investigation over accusations he waterboarded two inmates and brutally beat them in their genitals,” The New York Daily News is reporting. “Lt. Troy Mitchell, with the help of other guards, is accused of pouring buckets of water over the mouths and noses of two shackled inmates at the Auburn Correctional Facility in separate incidents. He is also accused of grabbing and twisting their genitals and then punching and whacking their groins with a baton.”

So much for prohibitions against “cruel and unusual punishment.” But you kind of get the feeling the Constitution isn’t the first thing on these guys’ minds, even if they did swear an oath to it when they accepted the badge.

I have to include a couple qualifiers here, the first being I’ve always found the Daily News to be a subversive, citizen disarmament-promoting birdcage liner, and to caution that the accused are owed full due process no matter what they’ve allegedly done. That said, what with verified reports of NYPD sodomizing a victim with a broomstick or reports of Baltimore “gun cops” planting weapons and robbing / drug dealing “with impunity,” it’s not hard to find verifiable examples of extreme criminality in “law enforcement” that should alert us to another potential.

In some departments, corruption and/or complicit silence about it is so widespread as to make the “few bad apples” disclaimer suspect. And with such as these, who thinks state-sanctioned terror squads on U.S. soil are a now-and-forever impossibility?

There are still plenty of citizens who don’t “get it” and who ridicule fears that brutal tyranny could ever happen in America as paranoid ravings of the “tinfoil hat” crowd. That’s especially true when it comes to reminding them of past genocides enabled greatly by citizen disarmament.

Some relevant questions come to mind:

By what suspension of reality, by what denial of the observable and the probable, by what art, device or magic are we sheltered few immune from catastrophe? Are we certain, from our brief and privileged vantage point, that such things will never affect us personally? Is it not just plain stupid to proclaim that our familiar way of life will forever be the norm, when everything that has gone before us shows we are, instead, the extremely lucky beneficiaries of a rare and fortunate convergence of circumstances; and one, by the way, that has only been preserved under force of arms?

Of course tyranny :can happen here,” and there will be oath-breakers that are not only willing to enforce it, but who will embrace and revel in their presumed unchallengeable power to do so. And since we know those enforcers will come from the ranks of “civil authority,” it’s critical that Oath Keepers within those ranks do what you can — when you can — to share the truths about the Constitution with your peers now, while peaceable means of redress yet exist. They need to know that not only are rights infringements unacceptable, so too is not opposing those they see abusing authority.

Powers are delegated in the Constitution to effect the “mission statements” articulated in the Preamble, including “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The Bill of Rights was appended to “the supreme Law of the Land” to ensure that grand goal would be attainable.

The term “law enforcement” is ubiquitous.  Rights enforcement is less so, both in terms of usage and in real world application. That needs to change and the ranks of rights enforcers needs to grow.

There are plenty of tools to help make that happen right here on this website. What’s needed is for each of us to pick them up and use them. Regularly.

It would be especially helpful to see comments about recruitment efforts that have proven successful so that they canbe used as templates to build on, and also to hear stories about attempts that have been met with official resistance and intimidation. If appropriate, it may be prudent to flesh out specific details and name names in private conversations with Oath Keepers leadership to develop a plan to deal with that, and to see what can be done to safeguard against retaliatory actions and other official discouragements.

—–

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 ‘Sadistic Guard’ Story Hints at Why Rights Enforcement Has Never Been More Needed appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Democrat Shutdown Deliberately Places Foreign Interests above those of Americans

Just whose domestic Tranquility, common defence, general Welfare, and Blessings of Liberty did these guys have in mind…? [Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States — Howard Chandler Christy/ United States Capitol]

The U.S. government is in its second day of a shutdown (as yet unresolved at this writing) because Democrats in the Senate refuse to pass the appropriations budget (or a continuing resolution) unless President Donald Trump gives in to their demands to surrender on a so-called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) “deal.” While the Daily News is reporting “Democrats said Sunday they’re now willing to accept President Trump’s controversial border wall in exchange for protecting young immigrants from deportation … Republicans are demanding that any deal include an end to chain migration and a visa lottery program.”

A “pathway to citizenship” for these illegal aliens  essentially guarantees that not just so-called “DREAMers,” but millions of foreign nationals, along with their “birthright citizenship” offspring, will culturally transform the Republic and do the same to the electorate. And the Democrat greedily want that because all credible polls – and the real world experience we can see for ourselves in places like California – demonstrate such populations favor their party and gun restrictions by an overwhelming  margin, which will give them control of the legislatures and the courts.

That said, the reaction of some “conservatives” to the government shutdown has been “Good!” After all, look how many powers the federal government has usurped that are nowhere authorized to it in the Constitution. Look at all the new “Intolerable Acts” enacted, enforced and upheld. Look at all the faceless bureaucrats imposing tyrannical regulations. The federal government “has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance” in a way George III could not have conceived in his wildest fit of madness.

That’s inarguable, and it points to a much larger problem with remedies that go far beyond the scope of what I’m arguing here. Regardless, it all goes back to following the Constitution and its delegated powers as enumerated by the Founders.

Besides, that’s not what the Democrats are doing.

Lawful powers were ordained and established – by the people – in order to actualize the purposes and objectives articulated in the Preamble:

“[T]o 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…”

That’s the main reason for this government being in existence. That’s what “consent of the governed” was given to do and anything that does not advance that mission statement is, by simple logical consistency—illegitimate. What the Democrats (and any Quisling Republicans abetting them) are attempting to do is thwart the government’s ability to fulfill these obligations – to ourselves and our Posterity — and to instead advance the interests of foreign nationals (and their governments).

That makes the Democrats power-grab a calculated betrayal of our country through oath-breaking of the lowest order.

—–

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 Democrat Shutdown Deliberately Places Foreign Interests above those of Americans appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Retired Standing Army Brass Urge Congress to Neuter Militia with Infringements

“Potentially dangerous” is now a disqualifier? And if Gen. McChrystal is really concerned about training, why isn’t he reminding Congress of its duties in that regard? (Giffords/Twitter)

“Sixteen of the nation’s top retired military commanders are urging Congress to pass gun control legislation, arguing that there are many steps that can be taken to curb gun deaths that do not violate the Second Amendment,” The Washington Post parroted Saturday.

That’s a neat trick. It evokes nothing so much as a paraphrasing of Bill Clinton:

It depends upon what the meaning of the word “infringe” is.

Here’s the letter, being sent to Republican and Democrat Senate and House leadership under the banner of “Giffords,” formerly the Orwellian-named “Americans for Responsible Solutions.” That’s unsurprising because, as we’ve seen in past attempts at Second Amendment subversion, the Gungrabby Gabby Group has capitalized in the past by getting a high profile “Veteran’s Coalition” to sign on to its citizen disarmament agenda, including David Petraeus, Stanley McChrystal and others.

“As former military leaders, we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and developed considerable expertise in the use of firearms,” the letter begins.  It then proceeds to ignore everything the Constitution has to say about the Second Amendment and devolves into narrative talking points that sound more like they were put together by Madison Avenue types than by fighting men who know what it would take for Congress to obey its mandate and ensure the people are armed and prepared to fulfill their duties as members of the Militia.

“[A]s members of the Giffords Veterans Coalition, we believe that there is much Congress can do to reduce gun violence without violating the Second Amendment — which we explicitly support,” they lie. Nowhere do they make good on their meaningless words and unequivocally explain how that can be done. Nor do they define what they believe the Second Amendment actually says and means.

So exactly what is it they “explicitly support”? Notice they don’t (and won’t) say.

Instead they write of “credible polling,” presuming subject matter competence from those whose knowledge of the right to keep and bear arms consists of what the ignorant/deceptive agenda media feeds them. And they follow with a litany of lies and misdirection to mask that what they’re really talking about is imposing prior restraints, enabling registration, denying to civilians non-sporting weaponry, funding anti-gun propaganda, enforcing existing Intolerable Acts and denying  due a fundamental right without process.

That’s after Nancy Pelosi ‘fessed up to a “slippery slope” where no concessions will be enough. Hell, the people they’re joining forces with just called for restrictions on muzzleloaders and even on shutting down websites.

These are the names of those who have chosen to take sides against your rights and with those who would take them from you:

Admiral Thad Allen, USCG (Ret.)

General Peter W. Chiarelli, USA (Ret.)

General Wesley Clark, USA (Ret.)

General Michael V. Hayden, USA (Ret.)

General James T. Hill, USA (Ret.)

Admiral James M. Loy, USCG (Ret.)

General Stanley A. McChrystal, USA (Ret.)

Admiral Eric T. Olson, USN (Ret.)

General David H. Petraeus, USA (Ret.)

Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.)

Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, USA (Ret.)

Lieutenant General Russel Honoré, USA (Ret.)

Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.)

Lieutenant General Norman R. Seip, USAF (Ret.)

Brigadier General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.)

Rear Admiral James Barnett Jr., USN (Ret.)

That the prominent military leaders signing the letter willingly lend their names and reputations to advance a naked power grab agenda speaks of loyalty going first to the establishment they serve. It ought to make all consider the fears the Founders had of a standing army.

Unlike Oath Keepers, the 16 generals and admirals on the list would obey orders to disarm the American people. Noting the subversive blather they have lent their names to, it’s fair to conclude they would happily issue them, especially if it meant even more personal advancement within the establishment.

—–

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 Retired Standing Army Brass Urge Congress to Neuter Militia with Infringements appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Trump Pentagon Health System Pick’s Opinion on Guns Shows He is Unsuitable for Position

Gun owners turned out in a big way for Trump. Why should we take his appointing a gun-grabber to an important post over military health care without letting him know that’s wrong — and why? (Dean Winslow at confirmation hearing–US Senate)

“I’d also like to, and I may get in trouble with other members of the committee, just say how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy a semi-automatic assault rifle like an AR-15, which apparently was the weapon that was used,” retired Air Force Colonel Dean Winslow, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the military’s health care system, told the Senate Armed Services Committee during confirmation hearings Tuesday, The Washington Examiner reports.

“Winslow, a professor at Stanford University, offered up the assessment, seemingly unprompted, amid questions from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., about the military’s treatment of domestic violence convictions during his nomination hearing to be assistant secretary of defense for health affairs,” the report elaborates.

Somebody should tell this insulated functionary the weapon the citizen hero who stopped the killer used.

It would be bad enough had Winslow responded that way to a direct question. It’s also pretty obvious he’s trying to cover for the Air Force blowing it with required reporting on the Texas church shooter’s past.  To volunteer it out of the blue shows a predisposition to “progressive” academic elitism that makes it fair to question what he had in mind when he swore an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

It also reflects a troubling political mindset of some top military personnel exemplified by standing army standard bearers including retired Gen. Peter Chiarelli, retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus and retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and others who have teamed up with career military elites to lend their names to “The Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.” That’s a wholly-owned enterprise of the Mark Kelly/Gabby Giffords fundraising and propaganda machine designed to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And it’s not like such oath-breaking is new. We’ve talked before about the late Rhode Island Sen.  John Chaffee, a Republican and a bona fide USMC hero of World War II and Korea, who even went farther and introduced a bill to ban handguns.  Other prominent military gun-grabbers include retired general and former presidential candidate  Wesley Clark, who called for a host of infringements including banning so-called “assault weapons,” arrogantly declaring “people who like [them] should join the … Army.”

And retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and former Secretary of State Colin Powell showed his sentiments, heavily couched in globalist weaselspeak to appear “reasonable” to “Meet the Press” viewers:

Unfortunately, but perhaps reflective of the political realities needed to get to the top ranks in the armed services (the late Col. David Hackworth called them “perfumed princes”), warriors of equivalent political clout have not stepped forward to champion the truth to the American people, that:

• The founders, fearful of a standing army, envisioned “a well regulated militia” of “the whole people” that Congress and the states have been deliberately indifferent to establishing.


• That this was what they deemed “necessary to the security of a free State.”


• That the right of the people, from which the militia could be drawn, “to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


• That the people are entitled as a birthright, not as a government grant, to “every terrible implement of the soldier,” that is, to “ordinary military equipment” —  “in common use at the time” — intended to be taken into “common defense” battles.

For now, there’s not a lot we can do about gun-grab generals who see the way to further their interests is to further foreign and domestic interests in disarming Americans – aside from noting and exposing whose side they’re on to those within our spheres of influence.  But there is something we can do about President Trump’s wholly-unsuitable assistant secretary pick:

Tell him why his core constituency will rightly view that as a bad idea. You might start with the crappy way the health system for veterans has treated them so poorly, including as it pertains to their never-ending right to keep and bear arms. Putting a gun-grabber in a top slot is another slap in their faces.

The post Trump Pentagon Health System Pick’s Opinion on Guns Shows He is Unsuitable for Position appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Public May Never Know if Gun-Grabber Ed Murray is really a Boy-Grabber, Too

Ironic or, given the circumstances,  just plain creepy? (Mayor Ed Murphy, Facebook)

“Mr. Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: ‘Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it’s enemy action’,” Ian Fleming’s villain Auric Goldfinger warned the secret agent. In embattled, just-resigned Seattle Mayor Ed Murray’s case, five men, the latest being his cousin, have come forward after years of silence, accusing him of molesting them when they were minors.

The openly gay Murray denies it, of course. He characterizes his resignation as taking one for the team, falling on his sword so the city he loves can get on with the important business of distraction-free governance. He’s proud of his “progressive” achievements, “including landmark gay civil-rights laws and enactment of a $15 minimum hourly wage.”

On the other hand, the men accusing him, including former street kids, drug addicts and male prostitutes, hardly make for sterling witnesses. Could this be a case of all smoke and no fire?

“An Oregon child-welfare investigator concluded that Ed Murray sexually abused his foster son in the early 1980s, leading state officials to assert that ‘under no circumstances should Mr. Murray be certified’ as a foster parent in the future,” a July Seattle Times report on records preciously thought destroyed revealed.

Prosecutors never pursued allegations and now it’s too late. Washington state statute of limitations laws mean Murray will not be criminally charged, at least over the accusations that have surfaced to date.

Nor will he ever be charged for his rape of the Constitution. There seems to be something about those with questionable ability to control themselves being perversely obsessed with controlling others. And in Murray’s case, the compulsion to mandate defenselessness on those under him seems driven.

Wonderful people, these oath-breaking gun-grabbers, no?

Murray was a proud member of Michael Bloomberg’s coalition of mayors demanding gun owner controls. He joined, among others, the Demanding Moms (and reportedly, the National Rifle Association) in denying the right to keep and bear arms to citizens who have been accused, but not convicted, of criminal actions — exactly as he has been.

And his solution to used Seattle Police guns was to melt them down.

Murray is the latest in a long list of oath-breaking Bloomberg mayors accused over the years of crimes that have resulted in numerous convictions. In his case, it’s reminiscent of former Portland Mayor Sam Adams, who exploited a “mentor” relationship with a teenage male for personal sexual gratification.

Unfortunately, Murray’s resignation will not slow Seattle gun-grabbers down one bit. Politics there will continue to be dominated by “progressive” control fetishists who don’t have to look far for powerless, intellectually immature and willing victims to exploit.

And not just there. The following was just posted by The Daily Caller:

“…Murray isn’t alone. At least 11 then-current and former mayors have been accused of child sex abuse-related crimes since 2016. The allegations range from child porn to physical abuse. The alleged victims were as young as four years old.”

These aberrations don’t trust us…?

Also see: State Investigator Concluded Bloomberg Mayor Ed Murray Sexually Abused Foster Son

—–

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?”

NY DA Vance Cites ISIS as Reason to Disarm Countrymen while Unvetted Foreign Nationals Given ‘Sanctuary’

Vance memorializes the Pulse nightclub “gun-free zone” murders by an Islamist terrorist by endorsing more citizen disarmament as the way to thwart ISIS. Promoting anti-RKBA sentiment in Spanish is telling in terms of understanding the enthusiasm for “sanctuary cities.”

“New York County District Attorney Cy Vance in an interview aired Sunday blasted a GOP plan that would allow qualified owners to carry concealed handguns in other states that allow individuals to carry concealed firearms,” The Hill reported Sunday. “The district attorney warned lawmakers that they were ‘playing into the hand’ of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorists, pointing to ISIS publications describing the ease of buying guns in some American states.”

“This bill is supported, I’m sure, by ISIS,” Vance asserted, just to make sure the headlines would be hysterical and the herd would be properly spooked. “ISIS points its readers to America and how they can easily obtain guns by going to states where there are no permitting requirements. So ISIS is paying close attention to this bill as well.”

For “Progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, so leave it to one of their key players to declare the very thing the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State” to be its undoing. And that, of course, requires that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms [BE] infringed.”

Tim Sullivan knew the most successful official criminals controlled the guns.

New York City is a prime violator of that right, from the criminally insane Sullivan Laws—literally. The notoriously corrupt “Big Tim” Sullivan, a favorite of city trade union leaders and the suffragette movement, forced them through to the benefit of his criminal cronies. He died under mysterious circumstances after escaping from a sanitarium, where he’d been suffering from paranoid delusions and the ravages of tertiary syphilis.

Vance is happy to keep the paranoid delusions against an armed citizenry going. The son of a former Secretary of State and globalist insider, he has teamed with Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (another oath-breaking gun-grabber) to form Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, a nationwide clique of elitist government lawyers from “progressive”-controlled urban areas intent on advancing a state monopoly of violence.

“The group plans to focus on policies to reduce gang violence and weapons trafficking,” The Los Angeles Times claims. “Prosecutors will also explore connections linking domestic violence, mental health and gun-related crimes.”

Meanwhile, they fight like hell to import more gang members, who promise to reward them with even more blood to dance in and exploit, translating to more power. Their ancillary agenda, using domestic violence and mental health as cover justifications, is to disarm even more citizens who have not been convicted of anything. Their agenda is to further erode the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the right to full due process and jury trials.

Vance welcomes Feuer as they join to impose their “progressive” urban disarmament agenda throughout the Republic.

As for Vance’s charge that ISIS will benefit if your right to keep and bear arms is recognized and honored, it’s fair to explore what’s wrong with immigration and refugee policies that allow unvettable foreign nationals into the country in the first place. But rather than address that problem, New York City, under socialist Mayor Bill de Blasio, has proudly declared The Big Apple a “sanctuary city,” and pledged to fight President Trump’s travel restrictions (which we should be learning more about later today if the Supreme Court weighs in as expected).

So the “progressive” solution is to let in more Islamists, disarm the people, and smear anyone who warns against that as a hater and an anti-government extremist.

—–

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

Beck and Feuer Exemplify Gun-Grabbing Oath Breakers

Feuer and Beck aren’t “anti-gun per se. As long as they control them, they like all kinds of guns just fine. (Mike Feuer/Facebook)

“Arizona gun laws in L.A.? It could happen,” an editorial in The Los Angeles Times penned by L.A. City Attorney Mike Feuer and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck warns.

“Two bills stacked with legislative sponsors — HB 38 in the House, SB 446 in the Senate — would override our state’s longstanding rules governing who is allowed to carry a concealed, loaded firearm in public,” Feuer and Beck explain. “These bills, both called the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, would dictate that if a person can carry a concealed weapon in any state, that person could carry it everywhere in America. This should be a call to action for all Californians concerned about keeping their families safe.”

And why would that be?

“In addition to jeopardizing public safety, concealed carry reciprocity would endanger the lives of law enforcement,” they lie. “The mere presence of more concealed weapons on California streets would make police work here much more hazardous.”

Yes, I wrote “lie.” First by employing the loaded term “dictate,” as if their “right” to usurp powers is being infringed. And that “blood in the streets/Dodge City over fender benders” hysteria has been used by the gun-grabbers every time a state has considered adopting “shall issue” permitting laws. It not only doesn’t come true, leading honest LEOs to admit they were wrong for opposing it, it also increases the sampling size to where objectively, another inconvenient truth becomes apparent.

Per economist and author John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center:

“Permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations at rates of thousandths of one percentage point. Civilian permit holders are less likely than police officers to be convicted of a firearms violation.”

Motes and beams, Charlie…

In true Opposite Day fashion, Feuer’s and Beck’s “progressive” stance is actually one desperately clinging to the past to maintain L.A.s “may issue” permit system. That generally means “may not” as far as commoners are concerned, ensuring the only non-law enforcement citizens allowed to “legally” carry are well-connected political elites and celebrities.

It’s hardly a surprise. Feuer (whom I’ve taken to calling “Der”) has a long history of in-your-face harassment of gun owners. He doesn’t much care for freedom of expression or private property rights, either (no one thinks it’s just about guns, do they?). Years back, when he was floating a requirement to provide thumbprints to buy ammo, a group of us sent him a fingerprint instead, and invited him to guess which one.

Beck, like his “Only Ones” predecessors and counterparts, also has a long history of supporting citizen disarmament. One of his favorite tricks apparently, because he seems to do it repeatedly at so-called “gun buybacks,” is to drag out an inert expended tube and convince an easily-impressed media that his efforts are KEEPING ROCKET LAUNCHERS OFF THE STREETS!!!

What’s evident is that both of these creatures have taken an oath to the Constitution and that true law enforcement, as practiced by Oath Keepers, means refusing unlawful orders and upholding “the supreme Law of the Land.”  .

That Beck and Feuer instead subvert it and do everything in their power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms proves them to be oath breakers of the lowest order.

—–

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