Wake-Up Call-----9 Republicans Co-Sponsoring More Gun Control for Law-Abiding Americans

Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) introduced gun control aimed at law-abiding Americans on Tuesday. His bill has nine Republican co-sponsors, which means nine Republicans are willing to punish every law-abiding American for the behavior of one criminal in Las Vegas.

And they are doing all this to ban bump stocks, a product the ATF evaluated and approved in 2010.

The ATF approved the stocks because they are accessories for semiautomatics rather than conversion devices that turn semiautomatics into fully automatic weapons. Curbelo’s bill gets around the ATF’s approval by explicitly banning certain accessories for AR-15s, even if those accessories “[do] not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.”

And like the Democrat bill–put forward by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)–Curbelo’s bill is already broader than bump stocks alone. In other words, it is a ban that will keep on giving for the Democrats and other gun control proponents.

Here are the nine Republicans who are co-sponsoring Curbelo’s bill:

Rep. Peter King (R-NY)

Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ)

Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA)

Rep, Ed Royce (R-CA)

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ)

Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN)

Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA)

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)

Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA)

The push to ban bump stocks is especially rich in light of the fact that using the devices probably made the Vegas attacker less effective than he would have been without them. After all, bump stocks are made for novelty rather than precision. For this reason, U.S. Army Sergeant First Class special forces soldier Tony Cowden suggests the Vegas attacker could have been deadlier if he had shot slower with a rifle not outfitted with a bump stock:

Bump stocks may have made Paddock less deadly https://t.co/90ddK51Y8w pic.twitter.com/eC42rf8k11

— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) October 4, 2017

Moreover, the effect one achieves with a bump stock can be achieved with an index finger and a belt-loop; no bump stock device needed. So what will Republican gun controllers do if they ban bump stocks and realize that people are still having fun with their rifles via blue jean belt loops? Will they ban belt loops?

In summary–Bump stocks are accessories, not conversion kits. They are novelties that reduce accuracy by producing a short, rapid-fire effect that can be achieved using nothing more than a finger and belt loop. For these reasons, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) stresses that bump stock gun control is part of a larger misdirection that creates a “slippery slope” Democrats can exploit for more gun control in the future. Yet Reps. Peter King, Leonard Lance, Patrick Meehan, Ed Royce, Chris Smith, Erik Paulsen, Ryan Costello, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and Charlie Dent are rallying behind Curbelo’s gun control bill.


Views: 46

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And the NRA helped introduce this assault. The NRA opened the discussion by saying they thought reviewing the laws concerning the use of "bump" stocks would be appropriate at this time, due to this event.

Looks like the plan worked.

What part of "shall NOT be infringed" does the NRA NOT UNDERSTAND?!!!

Frankly, I think they play both sides of the game.

MSNBC Analyst Claims Second Amendment Was Created To Fight Foreign Militias (VIDEO)

MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace recently said on the air that the Second Amendment was created to fight foreign militias. How do these people get jobs on TV discussing serious topics they clearly don’t understand?

Wallace is the so-called Republican voice on MSNBC

The Washington Free Beacon reports:

MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace: Second Amendment Intended to Fight ‘Foreign Militias’ Not Create ‘Armed Population’

On Tuesday’s episode of MSNBC’s Deadline White House host Nicolle Wallace said the Second Amendment was intended to help fight against “foreign militias,” not to create an “armed population” while interviewing gun-control activists.

Wallace used New York Times columnist Bret Stephens recent op-ed calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment as a jumping-off point while interviewing John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, and actress Julianne Moore. “A conservative wrote a piece last week that got a lot of attention about maybe opening up the conversation about the Second Amendment,” Wallace said. “His name is Bret Stephens, and he said the intellectually honest way to have this debate is to say that this isn’t what was intended, that we’re an armed population. This was a right to bear arms against foreign militias.”

Stephens, however, does not claim in his column that the Second Amendment was not intended to mean America should be an armed population or that it doesn’t protect a right to arms.


Now they seem to be backtracking but for them to call for "looking into" anything, does not support the 2ndA.

Compromise is deadly and I think you are right.


Hollywood charged with 'homicide hypocrisy'
Study shows extreme gun violence in movies while makers denounce 2nd Amendment

Hollywood celebrities roll out their hatred for the Second Amendment every time there’s a gun tragedy, with calls for restrictions on weapons and ammunition, and even outright bans.

It happened again after Stephen Paddock, 64, reserved a room at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, assembled dozens of weapons and thousands of rounds, and sprayed bullets into an outdoor concert venue, killing 58.

But the film industry is being called out for “homicide hypocrisy” after a study revealed that the popular movies showing at the time of the Las Vegas attack featured 589 incidents of violence, including 212 incidents of gun violence, 108 of them with automatic weapons. The body count was 192.

The study by the Media Research Center reviewed the movies “Kingsman: The Golden Circle,” “American Assassin,” “It” and “Mother.”

“These were four of the five most popular movies in America when mass murderer Stephen Paddock modified his firearm into an automatic weapon and mowed down [58] innocent people from the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel. Making tens of millions off movies that constantly depict gun violence, and then calling for gun control, is homicide hypocrisy,” said Brent Bozell, the founder of Media Research Center, or MRC.

“Holllywood’s hypocrisy about Harvey Weinstein is only outdone by its hypocrisy about gun control,” said Bozell, a frequent commentator on Fox News. “You just knew the Hollywood celebrity crowd would jump all over that issue in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre.”

Bozell’s MRC regularly criticizes the entertainment industry for what it perceives as liberal bias.

On MRC’s Newsbusters site, writer Matt Philbin said people “were understandably horrified that [Paddock] was able to fire what amounted to machine guns into a crowd. Yet similar weapons were being fired in movie theaters around the country.”

He cited the movies reviewed, noting “The Lego Movie” was exempted because it is animated.

“To underscore that point, the ‘Kingsman’ trailer was so filled with violence it is difficult to tally. This 1 minute 56 second clip shows four scenes of characters deploying several different automatic weapons, as well as pistols, a lasso and rockets,” he explained.

He wrote that the violent movies illustrate the “entertainment media’s scapegoating tactic: complain about lax gun laws, demonize the National Rifle Association and never accept the possibility that Hollywood’s glamorization of guns and violence has anything to do with the latest mass-shooting.”

In “Kingsman,” Philbin wrote, “the drug lord villain is played by none other than part-time gun control activist and full-time hypocrite Julianne Moore.”

“Besides its 118 incidents of gun violence (70 of them with automatic weapons), there are 164 acts of other types violence in ‘Golden Circle.’ There are body slams, punches, explosions, ripping off limbs, ripping out vocal cords, putting people in meat grinders, cannibalism, lasso violence, slicing people in half and eyes randomly exploding from people’s heads. The product is a grisly body count of 92.”

“Assassin” kills off 37 and “Mother” kills 56, including “a crowd disemboweling and eating a baby.”

The body count in “It” is lower, but the movie features “a penetrating captive bolt pistol, a slaughterhouse tool used to horrifying effect.”

“This isn’t the first time a real bloodbath has been mirrored by what’s on the silver screen. In 2013, MRC Culture study showed the five top grossing movies at the time of the Sandy Hook school shooting, generating another staggering amount of violence,” Philbin reported.

The study notes that Michael Rosenblum, writing for the Huffington Post, pointedly asked, “[A]re you really surprised when Stephen Paddock decides to do sort of the same thing on his own in Las Vegas? Where do you think he got the idea from?”


Nearly Half of Republican Voters Support Stricter Gun Control Laws

Nearly half of Republican voters in a recent survey said they have some …
there's a whole bunch of those news articles the past couple days (http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=poll+support+gun+control&qs=n...). It seems obvious to me that they're skewed polls for propaganda's sake -- most polls haven't been anything else for a long time. BUT then, there's the typical R factor that might say otherwise = more and more the typical R isn't much different from the Ds when it comes to weighing natural law principles against politically correct.
At the moment I'd 1st assume the polls are skewed with manipulative intent, but not with solid conviction. Having any belief/faith in Rs' beliefs and principles is getting next to impossible too.

Agree 9thA  there is very little difference between R and D ideology it seems. It's all about what will enrich them and their wealthy donors and not about the People. And of course the media is complicit in spreading the lies in order to destroy the constitution and help create that global utopia?! 

D.C. officials defend gun laws, look to further tighten concealed-carry rules

D.C. officials said Wednesday that they are looking at ways to expand the city’s strict gun laws, hoping to recapture some of the ground lost after a federal appeals court struck down the city’s restrictions on issuing concealed-carry permits.

The officials also defended the city’s gun-free zones, saying there are a number of areas where they don’t want anyone carrying a firearm, and in the nation’s capital, with so many high-profile government sites, there will be more zones than many other cities.

No timetable has been set for new restrictions, but D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and Public Safety Committee Chairman Charles Allen, Ward 6 Democrat, said in separate interviews that they are looking to stiffen the list of requirements for gun owners to be able to obtain permits in the city.

“We believe more guns on city streets makes us less safe,” Mr. Allen said.

The debate comes after the city decided last week not to appeal a federal circuit court ruling striking down the “good reason” requirement that severely limited who was able to obtain a concealed-carry permit.

Now, as they expect an increase in the number of people seeking permits to carry, city officials are looking to tighten the screen.

“The court felt that our law with a ‘good reason’ provision was too limiting, which means that more people will get a license to carry, which means that we should take another look, after a couple years since we adopted the current law, to see if it covers all of the issues with regard to tendency toward violence, mental health issues and other clearly disqualifying factors,” Mr. Mendelson said.

The city has two sections of law that create gun-free zones. The more expansive section creates a 1,000-foot no-gun buffer around schools, day care centers, parks, swimming pools and other public gathering spaces. The law says those carrying weapons illegally in those zones can have their penalties doubled.

Second Amendment supporters and at least one legal analyst said the law is “bafflingly drafted” and they think permit holders could run afoul of it. John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said he has never seen such an expansive law and that it could make it “impossible for somebody to legally carry a gun.”






Bill and Hillary Clinton Brutally
Mocked After Defending

View image on Twitter

Crooked Bill and Hillary Clinton were brutally mocked Monday after defending the Clinton Foundation on social media.

The Clinton Foundation’s official Twitter account tweeted Saturday, “ICYMI: President @BillClinton wrote on Facebook this week about our work improving lives in the United States and around the world, from fighting climate change to combating the opioid crisis.”

Former President Bill Clinton’s Facebook post served to correct the record about so called fake news smearing the Clinton Foundation. Naturally, he linked to far left sites such as Snopes and Politifact to debunk the smears.

After touting all the charity the Clinton Foundation brings to hurricane victims, farmers in East Africa and combating Climate Change, Bill Clinton unleashed on Breitbart News for spreading conspiracy theories and false information about the Foundation.

Nevertheless, spreading false information about the Foundation continues, apparently as part of an ongoing strategy to distract attention from real problems and, over the long run, to completely erase the line between fact and fiction.

For example, just a few weeks ago on MSNBC, during a discussion of the President’s disparaging remarks about Haiti, his designated defender repeated the ridiculous assertion that I had taken money raised for Haiti for personal use and was responsible for the apparent suicide of a Haitian who knew all about it. Thankfully, the host cut her off, refusing to provide a forum for known false conspiracy theories. I’m proud of the work the Foundation and I have done in Haiti and will give you a more detailed report on that soon.

These attacks on the Foundation began in earnest with the 2015 publication of the Breitbart-inspired book, Clinton Cash. I thought the Foundation staff did a good job debunking the book’s charges, but they were published as written even in “mainstream” outlets, and even now the charges continue to be repeated online and in forums favorable to those who make them.

I have never responded personally to these charges, but out of respect for our donors, partners, and those who work at the Foundation, I think I should—because as we see, attacks, no matter how outrageous, can have a long life.

Bill Clinton also argued Chelsea’s wedding wasn’t paid for by Clinton Foundation donations nor do any of them receive salaries.

No, Foundation funds were not used to pay for Chelsea’s wedding. It’s not only untrue, it’s a personal insult to me, to Hillary, and to Chelsea and Marc. It was a wonderful day that Hillary and I were grateful to be able to pay for.

Clinton also argued the foundation was given 4 out 4 stars from Charity Navigator, Platinum from GuideStar, A from Charity Watch, and a 20 out of 20 score for meeting all of the Better Business Bureau’s good practice standards.

Hillary Clinton tweeted: Want to hear the real story of the @ClintonFdn? Read this: 

 Trump supporters savaged the Clintons.

How about when Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman donated MILLIONS to your foundation when you were Secretary of State and then you conducted official US business with them? 

What about how Haitian villages that you raised money for are STILL without the homes, schools and infrastructure you promised for them? Where did it go Hillary? Where's that money? Why did you plunder the great people of Haiti? 


Unless it explains

Benghazi 33,000 missing emails  Haiti  Destroyed electronics  Missing money
Uranium One Etc

Then no. Nope.  
Not on Presidents day.  

Care to tell us how much the Foundation pays out in salaries each year? 


Slush fund? Pay-to-play? Salaries for Sid Blumenthal?
Fraud in Haiti?  The vast majority of funds don't reach people in need?
That's the real story, right?   



© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service