A thorough debunking of the propaganda presented by Vox in their video on gun control and “mass shootings” in the U.S.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Scotland Gun Control: Where Nightmares Are Reality
Gun Violence Is a Serious Problem – Gun Confiscation Isn’t a Serious Solution
EDITORS NOTE: Read more at http://LouderWithCrowder.com including all sources at http://louderwithcrowder.com/vox-gun-…
Colion Noir predicted the future when he imagined a world in which air rifles are highly regulated. Now the government of Scotland is requiring this very measure of its citizens.
Ayn Rand wrote, “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”
Watch Colion’s video:
EDITORS NOTE: Please visit Colion Noir’s WEBSITE, FACEBOOK PAGE, on TWITTER an on GOOGLE+.
I was in the middle of a nice discussion with the man behind the counter at the firing range. He was surrounded by semi-automatic weapons and hundreds of handguns in the display case that separated us. I used the opportunity to tap his expertise, mostly because I don’t keep up with gun issues enough.
He explained to me the absurdity of the ban on automatic weapons, how and why it is that there is really no such thing as an “assault rifle,” and a bit about regulations on magazine size. He informed me that Clinton’s partial ban on assault rifles expired in 2004 due to a sunset clause.
This is where the conversation became interesting.
I asked: “So the law has been liberalized since Clinton?”
He raised his eyebrow and there was a long pause.
Finally he said in a deep Southern drawl, “I don’t know about no liberalism. I don’t like liberals.”
“Ok,” I said, “that’s not what I mean. I mean ‘liberalized’ in the sense of more liberal: like more freely available.”
That didn’t help. He just said, “I’m just saying that I don’t like much about what liberals are saying or doing.”
So I tried again.
“Well, more precisely, what I mean by liberalization is that American citizens are now more free from restriction than they once were to import and use certain kinds of weapons. We are more liberated to choose than we were before.”
Still, he stood there in silence, staring. Finally a co-worker walked by and said to him, “This customer means liberal like in the old way: a different way than you mean the term.”
I piped in and said, “yes, just the English-language ‘liberal’ meaning less government control over what we do.”
Even then, this nice man couldn’t understand what the heck I was talking about. The word “liberal” to him was like the Mark of the Beast. He somehow thought I was standing there promoting evil. Nothing I said would overcome his sense that I was somehow on the enemy side, simply because I was uttering this word.
Are we really so far down the path? Has our political terminology become so confused that we can’t even use regular English words and be understood?
Demonizing Liberals
Maybe this was an extreme case. Maybe it is not so bad all over. But I do wonder.
For years, right-wing radio commentators have been using “liberal” as a swear term: the worst epithet you could ever hurl at someone, indicating an individual hell-bent on destroying your life. They have contrasted the malice of “liberals” with the greatness of “conservatives,” who favor God, country, and free enterprise (with a bit of war thrown in). And book after book are published for conservative consumption using the term “liberal” to identify the most depraved values.
To be sure, this is not new. It has gone on since after World War II, when Russell Kirk’s Conservative Mind appeared and was promoted on the cover of Time Magazine. This kicked off a long-running demonization of one of the great words in the English language.
Now, you might correctly point out that the “liberals” started it. About a century ago, everyone knew what a liberal was. A liberal favored free speech, freedom of action, a free economic order, and religious freedom. A liberal opposed war. A liberal favored the ever-increasing liberation of the world from oppression, poverty, suffering.
That began to change in the Progressive Era and especially with the New Deal. Liberals had to make a choice between the free economy and the fascist model of the New Deal. They chose poorly. Yet they kept calling themselves liberals. Ten years later, it had begun to stick.
Conservative Is Not What We Are
So when William F. Buckley set out to, as he alleged, “stand athwart history and yell stop,” he needed a different name for his “anti-Left” movement. The name he chose was Kirk’s “conservative.” The new “conservatism” differed from that of the old English Tories in that it had affection for free enterprise. Yet it harkened back to those bygone reactionaries by favoring war, the cops, and social control. The new “conservative movement” co-opted the classical liberal remnant of the time.
Already distorted, the conservative acquiescence to the left on terminology made a bad situation worse. And it has only worsened further over the decades, to the point that today the word liberal has become practically unusable in some corners, in spite of its rich and glorious history.
And yet this is mostly true just in the United States. In most places in the world, the word “liberal” still means what it is supposed to mean. More substantially, it is the right word. It has a beautiful tradition. And I agree with Mises who said there is no suitable replacement.
“This usage is imperative,” he wrote in 1966, “because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement that substituted free enterprise and the market economy for the precapitalistic methods of production; constitutional representative government for the absolutism of kings or oligarchies; and freedom of all individuals from slavery, serfdom, and other forms of bondage.”
I’ll say it again: Don’t give up the term liberal. You might even be one.
Despite the gruff gun salesman behind the counter, I won’t give up the term “liberal.” The way I feel about that grand word is the same way he feels about his guns. You can take “liberal” from me when you pry it from my cold dead mouth.
Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email.
Recoil Magazine published an article titled, “Rich Grassi Explores Clinton-era Report on Gun Violence in Mexico.” The Recoil staff write:
In a recent issue of the Tactical Wire, editor Rich Grassi takes a hard look at a Clinton-era report on gun violence in Mexico, some of the conclusions General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret.) made, and how those conclusions are as fallacious as they are apparently politically-motivated. Seems apropos given the significance of gun control in the current election process — though gun control isn’t quite as important, apparently as focusing on the brutality of our nation’s police force–who are being murdered on duty, if you weren’t aware, at the rate of about one every day and a half right now. Most recently it was a female former Marine rookie on her first day on the street with her Field Training Officer and then a Euless, TX officer just hours later.
Not that we’ve heard anyone from the current administration address that.
Here’s a quick excerpt.
Sometimes it’s hard to find what someone has on the ball however. A person fitting that category is General Barry R. McCaffrey, USA (Ret.) A “drug czar” under President Clinton, the General is apparently still active and seeking something to do. On the internet, I found his “after action report” (AAR) to a visit to Mexico, that visit occurring on 5 through 7 December 2008.
While showing extraordinary good sense in going south for the winter, our intrepid General showed nothing else by way of good sense. In his AAR, subtitled “Memorandum for Colonel Michael Meese, Professor and Head Department of Social Sciences” (sic), he determined that the cause of the massive violence from the Mexican drug cartels along the border was the U.S., specifically that nasty little cultural quirk that citizens can be armed if they want to be.
You can read this article in its entirety — and see how Grassi disassembles the nonsense — right here.
The Tactical Wire is one of the firearms industry related publications many of our writers read on a regular basis. Not necessarily because of the news (we get all those press releases too) but because of the op-eds and commentary at the bottom: features like Editor’s Notebook and Around the Water Cooler. TTW’s editor Rich Grassi spent a lifetime serving his community as a LEO. As our web editor David Reeder puts it, “Rich has forgotten more about common gunsensical truth than droves of self-proclaimed experts out there now can ever hope to know. He’s a good man with a wealth of knowledge and definitely one of those worth paying attention to. Plus, he was great as Sgt. Esterhouse on Hill Street Blues.”
You may follow The Tactical Wire online here.
RELATED ARTICLES:
ICE: 124 illegal immigrants released from jail later charged in 138 murder cases
Willful ignorance of firearm function, culture, and law are well-known characteristics of the gun control movement. However, the principals in a recently manufactured controversy, surrounding legislation in Iowa that would allow properly supervised youth to use handguns for the shooting sports, have shown a particular disregard for the facts and prevailing law.
Current Iowa law makes it a misdemeanor to transfer a handgun to those under the age of 21, with a few exceptions. A parent, guardian, or spouse over 21 may allow those ages 14-20 to possess a handgun while the minor is under their direct supervision, or while receiving instruction. Iowa has a blanket prohibition on handgun possession for all those under 14, regardless of parental supervision. Current law even prevents those under 14 from engaging in traditional handgun safety instruction.
This restriction is significantly out-of-step with the vast majority of the country; including some of the most anti-gun jurisdictions. While the various states have different contours dealing with youth handgun possession, a cursory look at Iowa’s immediate neighbors proves instructive.
Take for instance Iowa’s neighbor, Illinois. The Land of Lincoln allows those under 18 to participate in “lawful recreational activity” using a handgun, while in the custody or control of a parent or guardian with a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card. Similarly, Wisconsin, allows those under 18 to participate in “target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.”
In Minnesota, those under 18 may possess a handgun “in the actual presence or under the direct supervision of the person’s parent or guardian.” Nebraska law makes clear that their restriction on the possession of handguns by those under 18 does not apply to the “temporary loan of handguns for instruction under the immediate supervision of a parent or guardian or adult instructor.”
South Dakota law bars handgun possession by those under 18, but provides exceptions for youth in certain circumstances with the consent of their parent or guardian. Missouri prohibits transferring a firearm to those under 18 without consent of the minor’s parent or guardian.
These state laws properly place with parents the right and responsibility for determining when a young person is mature enough to safely handle a handgun.
NRA is supporting legislation to bring Iowa law in line with the rest of the country. House File 2281, the Youth Safety & Parental Rights Act, allows those under 21 to possess a handgun while under the direct supervision of a parent, guardian, or spouse, or when receiving instruction. The legislation holds the parent or guardian strictly liable for any damages. It is important to note that under this legislation, Iowa law would still be more restrictive than much of the nation, as persons ages 18-20 would still require supervision in order to possess a handgun. H.F. 2281 was passed by the Iowa House on February 23, and is now being considered by the state Senate.
Unfortunately, from reading accounts in the mainstream press about this simple fix to Iowa law, one might get the impression that the Hawkeye State is about to resemble Lord of the Flies.
Iowa State Rep. Kirsten Running-Marquardt did her part in the fear-mongering campaign with absurd comments reported by Des Moines CBS affiliate KCCI. The news outlet quoted Running-Marquardt as stating, “What this bill does, the bill before us, allows for 1-year-olds, 2-year-olds, 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds to operate handguns. We do not need a militia of toddlers. We do not have handguns that I am aware of that fit the hands of a 1- or 2-year-old.”
Shortly after the bill’s passage in the House, the national anti-gun media felt compelled to weigh in. Syndicated anti-gun columnist Dan K. Thomasson called the legislative fix “insanity” and accused the “gun lobby” of “bringing up baby in the sacred gun culture.” In his rambling hyperbole-filled screed, the writer managed to attack the mundane proposal using ridiculous references to 1930s gangster John Dillinger and “African rebel armies… made up of AK-47 carrying children as young as 9 or 10.” Media outlets have run stories with deliberately misleading headlines, such as “Iowa Lawmakers Approve Bill That Would Let Kids Have Handguns,” and “Iowa Legislature Debates Giving Handguns to Children.” Such stories fail to recognize the prevailing law throughout the country.
The opponents of this legislative fix are hoping that those unfamiliar with firearms law will have a knee-jerk reaction to a salacious headline about kids in Iowa owning handguns. It is up to NRA members to help explain to others how this legislation brings Iowa in accordance with prevailing national standards, and how the gun control movement and a willing media thrive on ignorance.
As the last two weeks of the 2016 Legislative Session, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R- Shalimar) is still standing up and fighting to get Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (R-Miami) to do the right thing and let the Open Carry bill be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As you recall, Sen. Diaz de la Portilla is stonewalling and deliberately refusing to give the committee and the full Senate an opportunity to vote on the bill.
An Opinion Editorial by Rep. Gaetz, calling for the bill to be heard was published today in the North West Florida Daily News. Read it below and please thank Rep. Gaetz for continuing to fight for your rights. You may contact Rep. Gaetz at: matt.gaetz@
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R- Shalimar)
NWFdailynews.com
GUEST COLUMN: Florida Senate should let debate begin on open carry
By REP. MATT GAETZ | Special to the Daily News
Posted Feb. 28, 2016 at 1:00 PM
The organizing principle of my public service is Constitutional liberty. If government constrains itself to the Constitution, free markets, free enterprise and free people can thrive. Otherwise, we get catastrophic consequences like ObamaCare, lawless executive orders and a government that (often corruptly) picks winners and losers.
In a world of uncertainty, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is undeniably clear: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Today, Florida is one of only five states infringing on the rights of citizens to “openly carry” handguns. That’s right. Open carry is legal in various forms in 45 other states. Florida joins California, New York, Illinois and (oddly) South Carolina as the only states to totally prohibit open carry. Thirty states do not require a license, while 15 do.
Weeks ago the Florida House of Representatives passed a bill I authored allowing Floridians with concealed carry permits to openly carry in a holster. It was a bipartisan 80-36 vote. The bill was endorsed by the Florida Police Chief’s Association, Unified Sportsmen of Florida and the National Rifle Association. The Florida Chamber of Commerce helped draft provisions to allow private property owners to prohibit open carry if they choose.
Then, the Senate Judiciary Chairman killed it. He refused to even allow a vote on open carry, likely because the bill would have passed. No one Senator should have the right to unilaterally block critical legislation from even having a vote – especially when constitutional rights are implicated.
There is no constitutional, statistical or rational basis to disallow open carry in Florida. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s own data, in open carry states you are:
Open carry is not a Utopian solution to violence. Many factors impact crime rates. But, reasonable people cannot disagree on the statistical fact that open carry does not increase violence.
I find it compelling that concealed carry permit holders are remarkably law-abiding. According to Florida Department of Law Enforcement crime data, permit holders are six times less likely to commit crimes than law enforcement officers.
If I am elected to serve in the Senate next year, I’ll again file much needed open carry legislation. I’ll also pursue changes to Florida Senate rules to allow for more transparent debate on the issues facing Florida.
Florida should be an open carry state. The Florida Senate should let the debate begin. I’m ready for it.
Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, was elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2010 and has been subsequently reelected three times. He is the immediate past Chairman of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee and currently chairs the Finance & Tax Committee.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Court of Appeals Declines to Rehear Heller III, Reinforces Pro-Gun Victory
Stranger Than Fiction: Gun Control Debate Leads to Discovery of New Species
Has the VA Deprived You of Your Second Amendment Rights? NRA Wants to Hear From You!
As we have reported several times in the past (including here and here), the Veterans Administration (VA) has been reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) the identities of its beneficiaries who have been assigned a “fiduciary” to manage their benefits. The VA claims that such determinations constitute an “adjudication of mental defectiveness” under federal law, thereby prohibiting the beneficiary (preemptively for life) from acquiring or possessing firearms.
The NRA has for several years been supporting legislation to correct this unjustified infringement on Second Amendment rights, including the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (H.R. 2001, Rep. Jeff Miller, R-FL) and the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015 (S. 2002, Sen. John Cornyn, R-TX).
Recently, this issue has taken on even broader importance with the planned implementation of a similar program concerning Social Security Administration (SSA) beneficiaries who have been assigned a “representative payee.” We reported on SSA’s plans last summer, and then the White House itself announced the program would be part of President Obama’s latest “executive actions” on gun control.
Now, in our continuing efforts to oppose these gun-grabbing schemes, we are asking you to share your stories. We are interested in hearing from VA beneficiaries who have been deprived of their Second Amendment rights after assignment of a fiduciary, especially if you are willing to allow your experience to be made public. Our hope is that by putting a human face on VA’s practices, we’ll be able to shine more light on this scandal and hopefully promote meaningful reform.
In particular, we’d like to know:
If you are able to share documentation of your experience (letters, rulings, etc.) that would also be very helpful.
Please contact us using our web form here or call us at (800) 392-8683 and provide:
The NRA is committed to ensuring that the Second Amendment rights of all VA and SSA beneficiaries are respected. Your help will promote this effort.
Representative Lori Berman, I thank you for sending me your email concerning Florida’s open carry bills. You stated that allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry openly their weapons in holsters on the streets and in public buildings gives you “great concern.”
You say they “pose a threat” to our “safety” in the community and to residents.
So that would be me and 1.4 million law abiding Americans who live in Florida with concealed carry permits that you are referring too, correct?
Seriously, please specify to me how an inanimate object in the hands of a well trained law abiding American poses a threat to residents and the community.
Please list for me all the threats that a holstered weapons poses. Give me 5 examples. List them 1 – 5.
I am an expert pistol and rifle shot. I have been federally and state screened to carry a concealed weapon. I was trained by the U.S. Navy to fire more weapons than your average person.
I am also a deadly shot so if a bad guy wants to play ball with me he will lose. I am not a threat to the community I am an asset.
People will feel at ease shopping in the store when they see my weapon in my holster. Bad guys will think twice about robbing the store I am in.
Ladies with a holstered weapon become secure in their surroundings knowing they have a means to defend themselves from bad people. 9-11 calls will drop dramatically.
It is you Representative Berman that is the threat to the community by refusing to uphold your oath of office to uphold and defend and protect the U.S. Constitution of the United States – the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment gives me and every other law abiding citizen in this nation the right to carry a weapon for self defense and to protect others either concealed or in an open holster.
It is liberals like you who make the streets more dangerous with your policies, just look at Chicago. You agenda is to disarm us but you will retain “your” weapons.
Perhaps it is time for you to pack your stuff and leave Boynton Beach Florida and go back to the “Peoples Republic” of New York where you originally immigrated from.
Slap your Hillary Clinton sticker on your Michael Kors over night bag, affix your Hammer and Sickle lapel pin to your made in China jacket and take your left wing, pro socialist anti American ideology with you and stay there.
RELATED ARTICLE: Find Out If Your Lawmaker Voted to End Operation Choke Point
Guns for women! To give them a solid defense against the dangers of Obama’s new America.
RELATED ARTICLE: Mainstream: Girls with Guns in America
Amid reports that the FBI is close to recommending that the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified materials, and that FBI Director James Comey and other agency personnel investigating Clinton may resign if the DOJ refuses to do so, sources close to Michael Bloomberg say the billionaire former mayor of New York City may run for president if Clinton appears unable to win the Democratic Party’s nomination.
CBS New York reports, “[t]hey say Bloomberg would strongly consider running if the general election looked like it would be a contest between Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republicans Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.” Bloomberg, who has let on that he would be willing to spend 1 billion dollars on a campaign, is expected to make his decision by March. Four states are holding their presidential primaries and caucuses in February, and another 14 will do so on Super Tuesday, March 1st.
Appearing unfazed by her troubles, Clinton insists “nothing that I did was wrong” and said of the Bloomberg news, “the way I read what he said was if I didn’t get the nomination, he might consider it. Well, I’m going to relieve him of that and get the nomination, so he doesn’t have to.”
Unfortunately, from Clinton’s perspective, that may be a fairly big “if.” Polls show her being trounced by Sen. Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire and also losing Iowa, where the country’s first presidential primaries and caucuses will be held, and that her national figures are dropping. Other polls show that more Americans view her unfavorably than favorably.
Fox News reports, “[t]he FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible ‘intersection’ of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.” Fox followed up on the story on Tuesday, saying, “The security investigation is now part and parcel with the criminal [public corruption] investigation.”
Bloomberg must theorize that he could appeal to voters on the basis of his success as a businessman and his time as the mayor of the nation’s most populous city. But he faces a difficult “if” of his own. Clinton been casting herself as the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history, a distinction Bloomberg would certainly want to challenge if he threw his hat into the ring. Also, and perhaps for the same reason, a Morning Consult poll released this week found Bloomberg at 13% in a hypothetical three-way race against Donald Trump and Clinton, 11% when the Republican candidate is Sen. Ted Cruz, and down to 10% when the Republican is Sen. Marco Rubio.
Bloomberg might be able to bump those numbers up among Democrats a bit, if he promised to pardon Clinton on the first day of his presidency. That would not only endear him to Clinton’s most fanatical supporters, it would wipe the slate clean, at least legally-speaking, for someone who shares his deep antipathy for guns. With public opinion trending steadily against gun control, a President Bloomberg couldn’t afford to have one of his strongest anti-gun allies in court or in prison.
Hillary Clinton is not known for her sincerity and forthrightness.
In fact, a poll conducted last September by Suffolk University/USA Today demonstrated that more than one in five voters associate some term of deceitfulness with Clinton, including “liar,” “dishonest,” “untrustworthy,” and “fake.” This followed an earlier Quinnipiac University poll that found, “’Liar’ is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton.” And that one followed similar findings from CNN/ORC International. Et cetera.
Like Abraham Lincoln said, “you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
But you can’t fault Hillary Clinton for trying her level best to do just that.
Regular observers of Hillary Clinton know for a fact she is no fan of the Second Amendment. We know, for example, she thinks the Supreme Court was “wrong” to declare that it’s an individual right, that self-defense is its “core” purpose, and that it prohibits the government at all levels from banning handguns. We also know that she is open to the idea of a mandatory, nationwide surrender of firearms, along the lines of what Australia did.
So we can at least credit her for being honest about that.
Well, sort of, anyway.
Those statements are now part of the public record, and we’ll gladly remind the public of them every chance we get.
But not everybody follows politics closely … not even everybody who votes.
So Hillary Clinton is counting on Americans to have short memories and limited awareness during the general election this year.
For now, she is willing to pander to her base and try to position herself to the left of primary challenger Bernie Sanders by harping on gun control … at least some of the time. She believes that message will resonate with the much smaller and more ideologically-oriented segment of the population that chooses a candidate in the primary election. But will she be singing the same tune if (and likely when) she faces the general electorate in a bid for the White House?
Not if a recent Associated Press (AP) analysis of her primary political ads is any indication. As an article in the D.C. Caller put it, “The Hillary Clinton campaign wants to both highlight her staunch support of gun control laws, but also obscure those views in places where it may hurt her at the polls.”
According to the AP, 1 of every 4 of her televised political ads in New Hampshire touts her support for tougher gun control. Meanwhile, in Iowa, only in 1 in 17 ads mention Clinton’s support for stronger gun control and in a less strident way. As University of Iowa Professor Tim Hagle opined to the AP, “It may have to do with the polls and that the hunting tradition is stronger here in Iowa.”
In other words, Hillary is being what is commonly called – in the world of normal human interaction, where people don’t routinely misrepresent themselves to each other wherever it might offer a perceived advantage – “two-faced.”
Remember that when Hillary Clinton is talking to the nation as a whole (and not just her party’s most ideologically-motivated base) about what she supposedly believes and what she supposedly would do as president.
Even if certain primary voters support Hillary’s gun control agenda, America at large does not. That being so, you can count on Clinton to be more muted about her radical designs to disarm the populace when she’s trying to bamboozle her way back to Pennsylvania Avenue. Rest assured, we do not intend to let her pull the wool over America’s eyes on this point.
You are about to watch the confrontation, including “shots fired” at Mr. LaVoy Finicum in Oregon on January 26th, 2016. Many stories, including so-called “eye witnesses” have communicated versions of the incident leading to the death of Mr. Finicum of Mohave County, Arizona who had been protesting in Burn, Oregon the past five weeks.
The most recent “eye witness” account distributed nationally was reported by Victoria Sharp. Ms. Sharp’s account is false. The video below is taken from the FBI plane following the Finicum vehicle, and shows the shooting event as it occurred. A massive campaign has been launched nationally depicting Mr. Finicum as innocent and shot without provocation by the FBI.
As you will see (go to full screen) Mr. Finicum exits his vehicle upon hitting a snow bank attempting to avoid a police roadblock. While there is no sound, and having been a police officer myself, I have to think commands were given to Mr. Finicum as he came to the rear of his vehicle. As you will see, Mr. Fincium reaches into the left side of his coat making a clear gesture that he may be going for a weapon.
Shots were then fired by Oregon State Police, not by the FBI.
UPDATE: On day before his death, Robert ‘LaVoy’ Finicum spoke about potential encounters with government authorities:
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of deceased LaVoy Finicum, one of the leaders of a militia at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Jan. 10, 2016 (KOIN). Our thoughts and prayers go to the Finicum family.
Wayne LaPierre says that President Obama has chosen to attack what he misunderstands most about America—the Second Amendment, gun owners and the NRA. Obama even announced a federal gun force that will be four times the size of the Special Forces units he deployed against ISIS terrorists. LaPierre concludes by challenging the president to a one-on-one, one-hour fair debate.
View the Wayne LaPierre series on NRA News: http://www.nranews.com/series/wayne-l…
The presidency had LBJ — now meet LBG. That’s another presidential aspirant, known to this writer as Little Big Gulp. You probably know him as ex-mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg.
Little Big Gulp is a very small man with a very big wallet and an even bigger ego, but who doesn’t like big sodas. He successfully pushed for a 2012 ban on pop larger than 16 ounces, applicable to most businesses, but which was overturned by the courts as “arbitrary and capricious.” It certainly was. Perhaps, as comedian-cum-commentator Dennis Miller put it, Little Big Gulp didn’t like Big Gulps because he had to look up at the rim. Whatever the case, LBG also has big ambitions: he’s now considering a third-party presidential run.
Because, you see, we live in an unprecedented political age. With Donald Trump running the tables on the GOP side and the Bolshevik Bern giving Bill Clinton’s 527th favorite woman heartburn, Little Big Gulp thinks his time may have come: he can give Americans that moderate, sane choice, is his thinking.
And what a choice Little Big Gulp would be. New York Values™ do exist, and if you want them, LBG has that trademark. As an Internet commenter put it Sunday (I’m paraphrasing), in what could be Comment of the Week, if you combined his words with NY governor Andrew Cuomo’s to create a campaign slogan, you’d have “You only need a 16-ounce soda to kill a deer!” Besides Little Big Gulp’s antipathy for large drinks, he’s staunchly pro-abortion, pro-faux marriage, pro-homosexual agenda, pro-amnesty and pro, pro, pro, pro, pro-gun control. But he’s not a pro at reading America outside the Big Apple, which, LBG may be surprised to learn, exists and does vote somewhat differently than Gotham.
Ego is a funny thing, though. Thousands of years ago we had pharaohs fancying themselves gods. Today we have scientists supposing they’re great philosophers or theologians (paging Richard Dawkins) and liberal billionaires who think big bank accounts equate to big ideas and big electoral chances. Of course, Little Big Gulp did buy the Big Apple mayorship, and it’s said he may drop one billion dollars on a presidential bid. But he’d do well to ponder that old commercial for a Wall Street brokerage house in which ex-NBA star Shaquille O’Neal clumsily tries performing ballet in a leotard. The voiceover goes “Just because you’re good at one thing doesn’t mean you’re good at everything.” Little Big Gulp knew how to make billions, there’s no denying. What some gifted people don’t grasp, however, generally owing to a lack of humility, is that they’re much like idiot savants. They’re as stupid in everything else as they’re stupendous in their bailiwick.
But, hey, LBG is a guy who actually said in 2014, “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to Heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in Heaven. It’s not even close.” Because, of course, God couldn’t possibly have a different standard for right and wrong than Little Big Gulp. And if there are a few minor areas of disagreement, I’m sure LBG will set the Lord straight.
Perhaps Little Big Gulp’s conception of Heaven, though, is a place just like NYC except without fat people, the need for LBG’s armed bodyguards, and with very, very, very small carbonated beverages. As for heaven on Earth, that’s been waiting for a Little Big Gulp presidency. And I’m sure Mr. and Mrs. Middle America — you know, those citizens who Obama said “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” — just can’t wait to elect a pro-abortion, pro-faux marriage, pro-homosexual agenda, pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, de facto atheist. Either that or he’ll draw a few votes away from the Democrat nominee as he makes Ralph Nader appear an electoral phenomenon and reality makes him feel about two-feet tall, which, it’s said, is about 50 percent less than his actual height.
But, by all means, share yourself and run, Little Big Gulp, run — your 32-ounce cup runneth over.
RELATED ARTICLE: Bloomberg doesn’t poll better against Sanders than Clinton
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Michael Bloomberg is by AFP. Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com
Despite a highly-publicized speech and a multi-week media blitz aimed at convincing the American people of the importance and legitimacy of President Barack Obama’s executive maneuvers on gun control, the American people remain unpersuaded. Polls show that Americans are unconvinced about the effectiveness of further gun control measures and are in opposition to Obama’s decision to work outside the traditional political process. An additional poll offers important insight in to one of the reasons the public has repeatedly rejected new federal gun controls.
A poll conducted by Investor’s Business Daily on January 4-7 asked if stricter gun control would “hinder self-defense, protecting family” or “reduce crime/keep guns out of criminals’ hands?” Only 42 percent of those surveyed responded that stricter controls would stop criminals from acquiring guns. Moreover, the poll found that more members of the public believe an increase in gun ownership would lead to an increase in safety rather than an increase in crime. The poll also found that the vast majority of Americans agree that the Second Amendment “will always be a relevant and necessary safeguard against tyranny,” including 52 percent of Democrats.
Similarly, a Rasmussen poll conducted January 6-7 revealed that Americans question the efficacy of Obama’s executive actions, but it also showed the public is skeptical of the legitimacy of Obama’s decision to act unilaterally. Survey takers were asked, “Will the president’s new executive order further extending federal government oversight of gun sales reduce the number of mass shootings in America?” A mere 21 percent believed that measure would be effective, while 59 percent answered that it would not. Further, indicating that at least half of Americans didn’t sleep through grade school civics, when asked, “When it comes to gun control, should President Obama take action alone if Congress does not approve the initiatives he has proposed or should the government do only what the president and Congress agree on?” a majority of 58 percent answered that the president must work with Congress.
Part of the reason the Americans lack an appetite for gun control is revealed in another Rasmussen poll conducted January 10-11. The survey asked, “Do you trust the government to fairly enforce gun control laws?” A staggering 59 percent of those polled do not trust the government to enforce gun control laws fairly. A mere 28 percent trust the government with this task, while 13 percent were undecided.
These results are in line with broader measures of trust in the federal government. Since the 1970s, Gallup has routinely conducted a poll asking “how much trust and confidence do you have in our federal government in Washington when it comes to handling [domestic problems] – a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all?” Under Obama, the federal government has breached Watergate-era lows in trust.
With a severe distrust of the government’s ability to fairly carry out gun control policies, the widely-opposed decision by Obama to go it alone on guns is unlikely to bring about the sort of togetherness across the political spectrum that Obama purports to seek. Those currently running for the Presidency that hope to reverse the climate of distrust with Washington might do well to exhibit trust in the American people to exercise their right to keep and bear arms and their ability to make decisions through their elected representatives.
RELATED VIDEOS:
In this News Minute from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, Jennifer Zahrn reports that, with his latest executive actions on gun control, President Obama has once again chosen to engage in political grandstanding instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.
Black conservative leaders discuss how the NRA was created to protect freed slaves
RELATED ARTICLES:
Rep. Schweikert Introduces D.C. Personal Protection Reciprocity Act
