What Liberals would like to see in every state

A crazy story out of Joisey via The Blaze. I am sure this type of thing is something most Liberals would like to see all across our nation

“What they did was criminal at best,” Pantaleon said, describing how he frantically reached for a day planner containing his firearm when he heard strange noises at the entrance to his apartment.

“It wasn’t until I saw my landlord in the front of my apartment that I realized they were cops,” said Pantaleon. He then tossed the day planner back on his bed, came out of his bedroom and tried to close the door, when one of the officers pushed past him into the bedroom, picked up the day planner case and opened it. Upon seeing the gun, the police officer instructed the other deputy to “lock him the f*ck up,” Pantaleon claimed.

Police had been called to the apartment by a tenant concerned that the building was not properly heated. Officers demanded access to Pantaleon’s apartment because the boiler was located in it.

“The cop came out of the bedroom and started saying, ‘Oh, you brought a gun, if I only knew. … You are so lucky, they should be wiping your blood off the floor right now,’” Pantaleon said. “I was in shock, and the way these guys were behaving … I was in fear for my life.”

Police went on to thoroughly search his home.

“They had no warrant, they definitely didn’t have my consent, and none of the arresting officers Mirandized me. It wasn’t until I saw a detective from a major crimes unit that he Mirandized me, a little over 15 hours later,” said Pantaleon. “What good are my rights if I’m not allowed to exercise them?”

Absurdity on display.

 

Oregon Democrats ready to throw out 4th amendment with the 2nd amendment

They really are the Totalitarian Party

Democrats in Oregon are pushing legislation that not only bans guns but allows warrantless searches of your home by government officials.

Oregon Firearms reported:

Two days after Senate Democrats claimed they would not seek a ban on modern firearms and feeding devices, Democrats in the Oregon House introduced just that.

Seven Senators joined with eight House Reps to introduce a sweeping ban on virtually all modern firearms. Among the Senators is, of course, Ginny Burdick, who claimed on Wednesday “that she is backing off an attempt to push through a bill on gun clips that she drafted following the December shootings at the Clackamas Mall.”   The other sponsors are:

Representatives BAILEY, BUCKLEY, DEMBROW, FREDERICK, READ, REARDON, TOMEI, Senators , DINGFELDER, HASS, MONNES- ANDERSON, MONROE, SHIELDS, STEINER- HAYWARD.

Remember them.

HB 3200 not only bans most modern guns and magazines, it allows warrantless searches of your home, requires background checks and registration for a firearm you already own and as-of-yet undefined storage requirements. We say “a firearm” because even if you comply with the restrictions in this bill you may still only own one.

I never want to hear anyone say we should not call Democrats Marxists.

Does the Left REALLY care about victims of gun violence? Or do they care about exploiting them?

Matt at Conservative Hideout lays it out very clearly. 

In yet another example of self defence using a firearm, a man used a gun to defend himself, and his toddler son from home invaders.  Yet, the national media chose to take a pass on covering it.

Funny how these stories NEVER make it to national news isn’t it? Media bias anyone? But Matt has more thoughts

My last post about guns and self-defense caused a big stink on some sites, where people took issue with the comment that the liberals would prefer people to be dead, as it is better for the narrative. Allow me to expand a bit: Democrats, liberals, regressives (whatever you want to call them) will not stop at taking ugly guns-they want them all.  So, at some point, their desire is to have a 100% disarmed populace.  When considering that, any example of the lawful use of firearms is detrimental to the confiscation narrative.  However, dead civilians, and especially dead children, are easily exploitable-they are convenient emotional justifications to ban guns.  However, if they ever did get all the guns, and only criminals had them, there would be even more dead children.  But, I would wager that those dead children would no longer be worth covering.  Dead children only have propaganda value in certain contexts

I hate to say it, but I believe Matt is correct. I have seen and heard too many Liberals dismiss self-defense, mock the very idea that self-defense is even possible, and even question if self-defense with a gun is moral. For the left, the only important thing is destroying the Constitution and replacing it with a Marxist Utopia. Anything that aids that cause is moral in their demented minds.

 

Missouri Democrats seek confiscation of firearms

Via Gateway Pundit

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Dana Loesch Radio reported on the new legislation being pushed by Missouri Democrats:

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

To be very clear, the bill define as “assault weapon” in part as

(b) Semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

            (c) Semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

 a. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

            b. A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

            c. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or

            d. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;

That is one very small step from defining every pistol in this nation. All pistols have “detachable magazines”. This is a far reaching bill in that it seeks to take guns away, and in the fact that the language is getting dangerously close to banning all guns except revolvers, pump action shotguns, and bolt action rifles

 

Arizona gun store owner bans Obama voters

Good for him! Of course, not too many Obama voters would be buying guns anyway, but still, I like this! Via Gateway Pundit

Todd Starnes reported, via FOX Nation:

The owner of an Arizona gun store said he will not sell weapons to customers who voted for President Obama because “you have proven that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm.”

Cope Reynolds, owner of the Southwest Shooting Authority in Pinetop, Ariz., posted the new store policy in a newspaper advertisement — as well as on a sign posted on the front door.

“If you voted for Barack Obama your business is not welcome at Southwest Shooting Authority,” the ad reads. “You have proven that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm.”

The Southwest Shooting Authority is a family-owned, family-run business that Reynolds opened in 2004. He told Fox News that he’s absolutely serious about the new policy.

“I’m a small business owner,” he said. “If you are dumb enough to vote for Obama again – after four years of this — I don’t think you are responsible enough to own a firearm. I don’t care who it makes mad.”

 

God bless Oklahoma!

No, not the Sooners, the state of Oklahoma, for recognizing the God-given right to carry a firearm!

Gov. Mary Fallin signed into law Tuesday a measure that allows Oklahomans to openly carry handguns.

The measure, Senate Bill 1733, allows those who are licensed to carry a firearm under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act a choice: to openly carry a weapon or conceal it.

It also allows a property owner to openly carry a handgun on his or her land. No concealed carry permit would be required.

To receive a license under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, applicants must take a firearms safety and training course and submit to a background check by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors may not receive a handgun license.

The measure takes effect Nov. 1.

Oh, the gun grabbers will whine about this, they hate the right for citizens to be armed, and the right to self-defense which is so closely tied to it!

Yes, Fast and Furious was meant to force more gun control on America

It is not surprising is it? We heard for weeks from Team Obama that guns used by Mexican drug cartels were coming from America, and that our “lax gun laws” were at fault. Then, we learn that a government agency was basically forcing gun store owners to sell large amounts of weapons to straw purchasers for drug cartels. Now, The Lonely Conservative has the obvious news. It was all about gun control

There’s been speculation that the Democrats would use the Operation Fast and Furious debacle as a way to push for tougher gun laws. In fact, it’s already begun, at least for those democrats who are even aware of it. Now there’s evidence that the ATF planned to use the reckless and illegal operation to push for new rules for gun sales.

Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation “Fast and Furious” to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.

PICTURES: ATF “Gunwalking” scandal timeline

In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the “big fish.” But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called “gunwalking,” and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3″. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

As I have said, Democrats still hate the 2nd amendment. This also points out that Democrats will use any “tragedy”, even if they have to create one, to shove their agenda down our throats. Every one of these people who took part in this ought to be booted out of office, and possibly charged and tried.

Yes, indeed our rights are fading away

Robert lays it out for all to see

Across this nation our 2nd amendment rights have been taken. Our rights to bear arms which were written in the bill of rights to PROTECT WE THE PEOPLE from tyranny of government, have been neutered. We can’t (In some states) possess AUTOMATIC firearms. We can’t have magazines over 10 rounds, we must “Register” our firearms with the government, we must wait ten days for the okay from Government before we can get a firearm. We can not carry the firearm loaded on our person without big brothers acceptance.. The list goes on.

Some of the laws that have been passed in certain states make sense to some. To me, I’d just as soon see EVERYONE carrying a gun. The playing field would be more level than it is now. The questions seems to be “Why do you need a gun?” or “Why do you need a magazine that holds that many bullets?” or Why do you need to carry a gun?” these questions are ridiculous on their face but they are the very questions being asked by the grabbers.

No, I do not support a law REQUIRING anyone own a gun

I, of course, fully support the RIGHT, the GOD-GIVEN RIGHT, the CONSTITUTONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT, own a firearm, but for a Sate governmemnt to mandate gun ownership? That, would simply not be anything a free people should be forced to do. As the sponsors of this bill believe!

Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.

Nor does the measure specify what type of firearm. Instead, residents would pick one “suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and preference.”

OK, now here is the rub

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the bill and knows it will be killed. But he said he is introducing it to prove a point that the federal health care reform mandate passed last year is unconstitutional.

“Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,” he said.

I like it!