Charleston Shootings: Liberals Call For Disarming ALL WHITE PEOPLE

June 19, 2015

tomfernandez28 Blog: by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON

Liberals reacted to the tragic shooting at an Episcopal Church in Charleston last night by calling for an immediate gun ban in order to disarm all white people.

Police are still on the hunt for a 21-year-old slender, clean shaven white suspect who opened fire on a bible study group at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, killing nine people before fleeing the scene.

One of the victims included Rev Clementa Pinckney, a state senator and pastor.

The incident is already being exploited by liberals to push their twin agendas of gun control and racial division, with many advocating that a total gun ban targeting only white people be immediately enacted.

Comedian Rohan Joshi, who has 395,000 Twitter followers, reacted to the shooting by calling for the NRA to be designated a terror organization and for hateful “crazy white people” to be disarmed.

Innumerable others called for new gun control measures that would criminalize the Second Amendment.

The fact that black people are responsible for half of all homicides in the United States despite making up only 13% of the population would seemingly dispel the notion that disarming only white people makes any kind of sense.

Despite being outnumbered by whites five to one, blacks commit eight times more crimes against whites than vice-versa, according to FBI statistics from 2007. A black male is 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.

Figures in other countries show a similar trend, with half the victims of racial murders in the United Kingdom being white.

Incidents involving hate crimes, including murders, where the perpetrator is black and the victim is white are almost universally ignored by the mainstream media.

Law abiding blacks should not be made to feel guilty for disproportionately high black homicide rates, but by the same token law-abiding whites should not be blamed for events like the Charleston shooting.

More at tomfernandez28 Blog

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

If Obama Can’t Get the Guns, He Is Focused On Banning Ammunition For Them

March 6, 2015

By Lorra B.

If President Obama can’t get the guns then he is focused on banning the ammunition for them, at least the popular ammunition used in the AR-15 and other popular rifles.

This latest ban attempt by Obama, “with or without Congress,” has conservative groups who represent gun owners, and Congress, up in arms claiming that this “ploy is a backdoor attempt to do what the administration has failed to do through legislation—ban the AR-15,” according to WND.

Apparently, Obama wants no vote by Congress and he will disregard the will of the people. It will be, should Obama get his way, through executive action that the manufacturing and importation of this ammunition will be outlawed.

As this conflict grows more intense in Congress, on both sides of the battle, a lawsuit is being threatened by the Second Amendment Foundation. The letter sent by the SAF to the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) Director, B. Todd Jones, cautioned that legal action will be taken if there are any changes in the law concerning this ammunition which is used in America’s most well-liked and used sporting rifle.

“This proposal is just an attempt to limit firearms rights because the president’s other such attempts have been blocked through constitutional checks and balances on his power…Should the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) lawlessly proceed on this path,” cautions Miko Tempski of the SAF, “SAF intends to call on those checks and balances to stop the administrations executive overreach again.”

To further illustrate there is no need for this type of ammunition ban, top police representatives stated on Tuesday that there is no history of shootings against officers by criminals where AR-15 rifles were used. This in itself should counter any argument the Obama administration has in banning the 5.56 M855 ‘lightgreen tip,’ though the battle continues.

“Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands, but this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,” stated James Pasco. Pasco is the executive director of the Washington office of the Fraternal Order of Police, which is the world’s largest police organization with over 325,000 associates.

Pasco went on to say that this round of ammo “is not typically used against law enforcement,” but that he is “not finding fault” with it being classified as ‘armor piercing’ or in banning it. He did, however, state that, “While this round will penetrate soft body armor, it has not historically posed a threat to law enforcement.”

The reasons for advising the ban, then, have no merit though White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, insists that because the ammo can pierce armor it is enough reason. “We are looking at additional ways to protect our brave men and women in law enforcement and believe that this process is valuable for that reason alone.”

I would argue that most citizens had no idea of this ammo’s capabilities until it was brought to their attention and an issue made by raising fear in citizens.

This fear raising may backfire as the Obama administration’s efforts to ban the ammunition are being challenged as “55 percent of all House members have signed a letter challenging BATFE‘s proposal,” according to Washington Examiner.

“Led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte and the National Rifle Association, 235 members have signed the letter. The signatures came in at a record pace…just three business days.”

The Obama administration’s attempt at banning guns is no secret but this back-door attempt to ban ammunition, therefore limiting the popularity of the AR-15, not only has the Second Amendment community up in arms, it seemingly has Capital Hill all fired up as well.

By Lorra B.

 

To Arm or Not to Arm—Don’t Allow the Senate to Decide For You, VOTE In November!

October 1, 2014

The war on guns in this country is not a new one. With the upcoming elections in November it is a bitter war. Gun activists are praising U.S. Senator’s efforts to rid us of the burden of protecting ourselves and gun enthusiasts are wanting to lynch them for trying to take away our Second Amendment Rights. 

Gun control Activists will scream at the top of their lungs that guns are killing so many innocent people and need to be banned while gun enthusiasts scream just as loudly that guns do not kill people, people do. This is a battle that has been going on for decades.

However you feel about it, bearing arms is our fundamental right in the good old USA. The question should be whether government be allowed to take our constitutional right from us.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God,” is the oath of office administered to each and every U.S. Senator.

To many Americans it is this oath that they believe has been breached by way of not supporting Amendment 139, which narrowly passed with a 53 to 46 vote in March of 2013. This amendment, presented by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), was to confirm that foreign treaties could not overrule the U.S. Constitution. Think of the precedence this would set.

“Mr. President,” stated Inhofe while on the Senate floor, “I want to make sure that everyone understands what the United Nations trade treaty is. The trade treaty is a treaty that cedes our authority to have trade agreements with our allies in terms of trading arms.

“I want to very briefly read this so nobody over there or over here misunderstands what this amendment does. This is right out of the amendment. Uphold the Second Amendment rights, that is one thing. And secondly, prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations arms trade treaties.”

To many Democrats, those were fighting words. They simply could not understand Inhofe’s assertion that the U.S. Constitution over-ride that of the UN. The Democrats wanted the UN to be able to overturn the U.S. Constitution.

“The Department of Justice Attorneys led by Eric Holder have just started advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow them to invoke international treaty for policies such as gun control and conflict within the United States. This would include conflicts like the planned EBT shortage. It would also enforce the unconstitutional UN Small Arms Treaty that was signed by John Kerry despite the US Senate garnering the 53 votes necessary to block it from ever being signed. The act itself was committing Treason under Article 3 of the Constitution,” according to The Free Patriot.

The UN Small Arms Treaty would have placed a global ban on small firearms for both importing and exporting. This would have been devastating for private gun owners in the U.S. The language used in the bill would have put into practice an international gun registry on all private guns and ammunition.

What is probably the most interesting point in the UN Resolution 2117 is number 11. The amendment lists 21 points dealing with firearms control and number 11 stands out like a sore thumb because it calls for member states to support weapons collection and disarmament of all UN countries.

Whether there are grounds to call for treason is something for each and every American to decide.

What each and every American can and should do is get out and vote in November.

When you go to the voting polls in November keep in mind which of the 46 out of 100 Senators were willing to give your Constitutional rights to the UN. Not all of them were Democrats as previously reported, 2 were Independents (in red).

Baldwin (D-WI)                               Harkin (D-IA)                         Nelson (D-FL)

Baucus (D-MT)                                Hirono (D-HI)                         Reed (D-RI)

Bennett (D-CO)                               Johnson (D-SD)                      Rockefeller (D-WV)

Blumenthal (D-CT)                         Kaine (D-VA)                           Sanders (I-VT)

Boxer (D-OH)                                  King (I-ME)                               Schatz (D-HI)

Cantwell (D-WA)                             Klobuchar (K-MN)                  Schumer (D-NY)

Cardin (D-MD)                                 Landrieu (D-LA)                     Shaheen (D-NH)

Carper (D-DE)                                  Leahy (D-VT)                           Stabenow (D-MI)

Casey (D-PA)                                    Levin (D-MI)                            Udall (D-NM)

Coons (D-DE)                                   McCaskill (D-MO)                  Udall (D-NM)

Cowan (D-MA)                                Menendez (D-NJ)                    Warner (D-VA)

Durbin (D-IL)                                  Merkley (D-OR)                       Warren (D-    MA)

Feinstein (D-CA)                             Mikulski (D-MD)                     Whitehouse (D-RI)

Franken (D-MN)                             Murphy (D-CT)                        Wyden (D-OR)

Gillibrand (D-NY)                           Murray (D-WA)

 To arm or not to arm, don’t let Senators decide for you. Don’t let anyone decide for you. You have a voice, use it!  Vote in November.

 

By Lorra B. Chief Writer for Silent Soldier

http://SilentSoldier.us