“Reality Check” on Coming Gun Control (video)

If you’re not paying attention to the much discussed unConstitutional gun bans coming in the next few days, you should. Ben Swann has covered it multiple times as have many great bloggers.

And fact checking CNN’s Redcoat:

The tagline on his youtube page reads:

It’s not about Left vs. Right… It’s about Liberty vs. Oppression”-Ben Swann

12 thoughts on ““Reality Check” on Coming Gun Control (video)

  1. Piers Morgan needs to be deported to the bottom of the Atlantic. Even the Brits don’t want his sorry ass back.

    Let the sharks deal with him.

  2. So…whaddaya’ think? The gun “ban” is going to “pass” or “not?”

    I really don’t think “WE, the People…” have any say in this matter any more! “WE” have allowed this “Dicktator, OBOZO” have his way and the “media” is part of his “crew” which leaves us…


  3. What’s’ good for the Goose is Good for the Gander; Really?
    There is a lot of talk about gun control, about gun restrictions, about new laws for gun owners—even confiscation of all firearms. However, this is not a new subject; it has been going on for as many years as I can remember. It keeps repeating itself after each incidence that some mentally restricted, or Muslim, causes several deaths with a firearm… “It’s the guns; they must be taken away—ownership must be eliminated,” they scream; “No one should own a gun, especially one that contains a large clip that holds up to thirty round of ammunition,” the experts exclaim. And so, there are many little experts that seem to think that the real problem is the gun. “If they could just eliminate the ownership of guns, the problem would be solved,” they continue. However, there is never any mention of “parity” in their discussions; and, their proposed new laws never address the subject of parity—they just want the law abiding citizens to be stripped of their right to own and bear arms.
    So, let’s say that we agree with them, that the guns are a problem; and, ownership and possession should be “outlawed.” If we take that position, and do so without consideration of parity, we are ignoring our second amendment rights—rights that give us the ability, not necessarily to hunt and kill poor little animals, but most especially, to protect ourselves against trinity; evil governments that want to enslave us, and live our lives according to the laws and rules that they establish. However, if we apply parity, we come closer to something qualitative and acceptable for all. Again, however, we must not let ourselves overlook the extremely importance of equality and parity in our new acceptance of a country without guns. If we amend the second amendment, and accept and make into law, that no one should have the right to gun ownership and possession of any kind of firearm, then that must include everyone—I mean, not only the innocent little citizen, but the “high and mighty” members of our elected government… the Senators, Representative’s… and yes, and most of all, the President and the “goons” that surround him… absolutely, no one should be allowed to possess a firearm of any kind. Remember the old saying: “What is good for the Goose is good for the Gander;”
    But I can hear the moaning, crying and complaining; “But our government officials need guns, and body guards with guns, to protect themselves.” Let them have their body guards, but not with guns; and let them pay for whatever protection they deem necessary. If they are honest and righteously engaged in the work their constituents elected them to do, then they should not have to worry about protection. It is when someone decides to make laws and enact them against the will of the people, then they better have a way to protect themselves without guns… they better have, and be able to afford, some very qualified guards, guards that practice the art of self defense… and loyalty to their employer. Now, this same principal applies to the President… and most especially the President. The President usually upsets a lot of his countrymen; and they sometime become very angry, angry enough to do harm, but without guns they cannot totally eliminate him. However, with any type of danger in mind, the President, or anyone else, will concentrate on doing the right thing and avoid the possibility of offending their constituency, and jeopardizing their own lives.
    One would say, “The President is the Commander in Chief of all the Arm Forces—He can order the army, through his executive powers, to move and perform at whatever he deems fit to do.” Here again, we must consider “parity.” If the President has the ability to order an action of compliance of one thing or another against the citizens of this country, then there is no parity involved… He has the arms and the ability to override any desires the citizenry may possess—that is not parity, so we must address a remedy for that in order to prevent the misuse of power; and, prevent any possibility of an act of tyranny. In order to do that we must address and apply at least two of the most important issues—namely, his ability to use the Arm Forces of this Country on its citizenry; also, the obligation of the Military to comply with the request of the President, regardless of whom that action is against.
    If the citizens have given up their right to have and bear arms and our President has the full power of the military, which have any and all kinds of weapon for their use against any kind of threat against the presidency; then, again, comes the need for parity. So how do we remedy that situation? First, we must strip the President from his ability and authority to use the Military against his countries citizens…this can be done by an act or Congress. Second, we must strip the military from their obligation to comply with an order from the President to use force against his countrymen… in fact, we must make it mandatory that the Army is not to use force against any citizen, or groups of citizens, regardless of the desire and order of the President; the army, and all military branches, should be required to use their ability to protect our Country for outside threats, and from outside threats only…not from threats within. This can be done, and should be done, through an act of Congress…a congress that the majority of the citizens have elected and sent to that Governing body to do their will and fulfill their desires. Now that the military situation has simply been solved, what about the area police and the States National guard, with the Governors ability to call them out and suppress any dissention or uprising—what do we do about them? Simple: Take away their right to possess and carry guns, or any kind of firearms—let them use the art of talk and persuasion; also, the use of a “big stick” should be sufficient for them.
    So far we have discussed eliminating the right to bear arms and in doing so how we could achieve parity. Our discussion centered on the fact that no one, or organization, outside the military, should be allowed to own a firearm; and, we stressed the importance of everyone—not even the President and the “goons” that surround him. We have presented a pretty good case for giving up our guns as long as we received equality and parity in doing so. But, by giving up our rights to own and possess firearms; and, requiring all others to do the same; does that really achieve parity for all of us? Are we really safe from all the heinous and destructive crimes brought upon us by mentally and retarded individuals that find some way to obtain a firearm? Of course we haven’t, we have absolutely not achieved parity.
    So after all the effort and trouble we went to find parity, we find that we still have a problem. The problem is that there will always be the “Stronger” that will dominate the “Weak.” So, what would make the weak equal in strength to the stronger? Putting a .357 magnum, or an S&W 460, in his hand, coupled with the ability to use it as well, if not better, than his stronger opponent would put them on an equal footing. So by disarming everyone we can summarize that it will not help in lowering the crime rate. The only way to lower it is to force everyone to own a gun and learn how to use it, like driving a car; we require that the driver be trained and qualified to do the driving, we should require that the owner obtain a certificate to use the firearm. We should also require that all criminals have an implant placed somewhere on, or in, their bodies that would set off an alarm in the home or place that they approach, giving the occupants warning that trouble is approaching; and, if the criminal breaks in then the occupant should empty all thirty rounds into his boney little body. Going back to “What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander:” The Goose may not like it; neither will the Gander, because each wants to dominate the other; but, it is the only way to obtain parity and equality for all. So, when someone attempts to convince you that we must have a gun free country, just tell them to go “Take a long walk on a short pier.”

  4. Quite a rant! But I agree, and I’m not an American. Actually, this country (Canada) is awash with UNREGISTERED guns–and a damned good thing!

  5. OPEN QUESTION: Is there any provision under the current international law for an individual who carry a bomb under his jacked? or for that matter had already committed a genocide? (aside from the redundancy).

    ……….,we are enhancing the security of a child, the peace of mind of a parent, so at the end all it means a less violent society. However, It make a very naive of you to believe that by the mere presence of an armed officer at a school, the children are going to be 100% shielded against all kind of dangers, since we happen to know that violence can’t be prevented all the time, with guns or without it. We must not forget the fact that guns alone don’t kill, only people kill. Therefore, in order to placate the violence around, firstly we must educate ourselves, individually and in group, the best we can. It means that by drastically forbidding the selling and possession of fire arms we will be shutting at the wrong bird. It won´t work!

    Perhaps we should change our current approach, by shifting away from the official interpretation and emphasis, and instead devoting ourselves at learning about the promising relationship and empathy that might emerge between an officer, specially trained and motivated, and a child at the other end. Assuming the fact that the mere presence of an officer nearby might be highly comforting and reassuring to a child. So, we could safely predict that in the mind of a child, will soon emerge an improved image of the authority in general, also, a more congenial parents-adolescent relationship, and, by extension a more humane society with a reduce incidence of violence and delinquency, whereby nobody will be compelled to carry a gun. A plus in favor of future generations!

    We strongly believe that by having an armed officer assigned to a particular school, it carries a far reaching and positive results. In that sense we wholeheartedly adhere to the position assumed by Wane La Pierre, Pres. of the National Rifle Association and Tim Horne, Attorney General of Arizona, both arguing in favor of decriminalizing (our interpretation) the possession of arms. In spite of the fact that we have taken here a rather different approach, we reached at similar conclusions, because “every route leads to Rome”

    We highly recommend to read in Internet the excerpts from the Conference on Resources Officer Program, Providence RI., article: “What We Know About Assigning Police Officer to School” (October 22, 2012). In referring to such a presence at the school, the Superintendent of the Dorchester High, Boston Mass. say: “the safety is no longer a concern at Dorchester High”. Similar conclusions were aired by various reports coming from the United Kingdom: Safer School Partnership Studies (SSP), and also form Toronto, Canada: Police-School District Resources Officer Program. A report from Israel shows the picture of a female teacher carrying a gun on her back in front of her pupils. The report says: “since our teachers are carrying guns inside the school, there has been less crimes and violence”. Thanks a lot. Paladion

    • NO…you are 100%…WRONG!!! You’re view comes from someone who is obviously “in-love” with NAZI GERMANY! A “police officer” at school is NOT necessary…all that does is “condition” individuals to the presence of “POLICE” all the time! It is “conditioning” people to be “monitored” and NOT BE FREE!

      You’re a “naturalized” citizen and therefore don’t really know what it truly means to be “free!”

    As a general rule once a DICTATOR assumes power his main preoccupation centers around the possibility of implementing a general disarmament of the population, “Trasibulus” style. This assures him a long lasting stay in power without any significant opposition. EXAMPLES: Adolph Hitler; Joseph Stalin; Rafael L.Trujillo; Mao Tse Tung; Pol Pot; Kim Jong il, Fidel Castro; Hugo Chávez. All of them copied at each other’s methods for the sake of assuring their grip on power per secula seculorun.

    The Constitution of the EEUU allows it’s citizen to own and bear a fire arm (at home), so it could be use in self defense, and for the protection of his family. These alone might explain why in the EE.UU never prospered a military Coupe d’ Etat, neither a dictatorship. Therefore, the possession of an arm constitute an inalienable right bestow upon the citizen by the Constitution, so he is always ready to fight in order to defend those same privileges against any potential usurper or intruder. Moreover, if something goes wrong it can be assumed that the problem was the shooter himself, not the gun.

    It comes to our mind the recent episode at Fort Wood, Texas, whereby a soldier, most likely motivated by certain emotions beyond his control, pulled a trigger and killed several of his fellow soldiers. So, there can’t be no doubt on anybody’s mind as to the real cause of this incident, whereby some uncontrollable emotions and a low level of tolerance vis a vis the streess pull the trigger.

    A few weeks ago in Newtown, Conn., 20 children and 6 adult were killed inside the school by a mentally disturbed classmate, joined by a few other incidents occurred elsewhere. So these entire picture rises the question as to how can we protect our children against a classmate that carries a pistol inside
    his pocket. In our opinion such a matter should be addressed to the Mental Health Department and its Social and Psychological Services in the first place, so they take full charge and responsibility thereafter. As a prevented measure, a mentally imbalance child should be placed under psychological surveillance, so he and his family might receive appropriate guidance and treatment. Acknowledging the fact that violence in itself is not preventable 100% of the time, because the real problem resides in the psychological make up of the perpetrator, and not on the gun itself.

    So, the mere prohibition won’t prevent for a fire arm to find its way out into the hands of a criminal or a drug trafficker. So, the quota of violence will remain just the same as before, because the problem is the shooter, not the gun.

    The idea of assigning a police officer at every school on the land, does´t contemplate decimating the entire personnel of the Department neither it’s budged. As a prerequisite for working under these circumstances, the officer must demonstrate a sincere desire for being around children . We can expect that from this rather personal relationship between a child and an officer will eventually emerge an improved image about the authority figure in general, also with child’s own family and the society at large. We go for it!!! Again, the problem is the finger, not the gun.

    This rather scanty information is coming to you from a naturalized american citizen now residing abroad, therefore, you might find here and there some inaccuracies so far as the English grammar and other minor details, on the other hand however, the same might offer the advantage of a broader scope and perspective. Thanks a lot for your patience.

  8. You are right bobby90247: I’m in favor of freedom of choice, and, the right to bear arms is one of them, of course it should be allowed under certain civilized screening and rationality. Thanks. Paladion

If sharia law continues spreading, you'll have less and less freedom of speech - so speak while you can!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.