Using jargon to bully press control supporters
Mrs. Harvey Weinstein, Jr., spokeskitten for Hermaphrodites Of The World, typed a WordStar podcast for a Better Homes & Gardens investigative journalism piece calling for a ban on inorganic molecular printing presses with neutronium moveable type of the sort used by the Parkland shooter to disintegrate 17 people in a blast of gamma ray particulate radiation. In a radiation-free school zone, no less.
Well… no. Mister Adam Weinstein, an editor, wrote in a WaPo Op-Ed column that RKBA supporters are unfairly expecting those who would regulate and ban defensive and hunting tools to know WTF they’re talking about.
We tend to object to “assault weapon” for similar reasons. Weasels like Weinstein think we should just know what that means. But in most of the country the term has no meaning; we aren’t being glib and obfuscatory. It means jacks**t. Sure the term is defined in a few states…
…with definitions that vary by state. A California “assault weapon” may or may not be an “assault weapon” in Connecticut. Tell us what you mean. Know what you mean. Be able to tell the courts what it means. Be able to tell the courts why your definition makes one model of a given firearm an “assault weapon,” but somehow excludes an operationally identical model without being “unconstitutionally vague.”
You don’t like us condescendingly telling you that AR-15 doesn’t mean “assault rifle?” That isn’t condescension, that’s because “assault rifle” does have a specific, uniform meaning, and it is physically freaking impossible for a stock AR-15 to be one. We want you to tell us WTF you’re talking about. SCOTUS will expect the same thing.
You might as well be demanding a bill to make pi equal to 3.2, or to square circles. When your language — your words — don’t reflect physical reality, we tend to think either 1) you’re an idiot, 2) you’re schizophrenic, 3) deliberately confusing people to force a ban they wouldn’t actually want, or 4) All of the Above.
What Weinstein actually said:
In this kind of war over words, both sides probably need to give a little. But the pro-gun side needs to give a lot more — not just because it’s been disingenuously gunsplaining to shut down discussions and close minds for years — but because the onus should be on those citizens who own the weapons technology, and purport to understand it, to share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed. That’s a responsibility that goes along with the right to bear arms.
In short, the “pro-gun side” needs to give up accuracy and reality. We’ve tried to “share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed,” only to be told we’re “gunsplaining.” The fact that uninformed people with no interest in facts have trouble grasping facts does not mean the reality-based gun owners are shutting down discussions.
Weinstein is the victim-disarming equivalent of someone who heard that the Internet runs on tubes, and wants to regulate PVC and cast iron plumbing, and guarantee firehoses to everyone in the interest of “net neutrality.”
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, the “onus” is not on your opposition to reduce their IQ to your level by voluntary lobotomy.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
Let’s run that headline through the Universal Bullshit Translator:
“Criminals warned that more than half of gun owners keep defensive tools ready.”
Pretty much the only time all my firearms were what these idiots call “safely stored” has been when I was out of country (to a place where bringing firearms was impossible).
So I got an interesting, if slightly outraged message tonight.
Did you hear what that chick on FOX said tonight?
Um, just finished up a lovely Shabbat, reading a good book, drinking some good coffee and not watching TV. You’re going to ruin my good mood aren’t you? Yep.
It would seem some newscaster, I don’t watch decided to go full auto stupid. Yes, indeed, that is a tiny little joke. Some news personality on FOX news decided to speak authoritatively on guns and the Second Amendment. Indeed, she spoke with great authority, with facts? Not so much.
She starts out with it’s the right of every US Citizen, ok, good start Julie. The the effect of the Tide pods sets in. It’s the responsibility of lawmakers to prevent those who “don’t deserve the right to own one” from getting them. It’s not an infringement on the Second Amendment to stop arming the mentally ill. She realizes some will ask “how do you determine who is mentally ill?” But she says it goes past mentally ill.
Um, Julie, when did you decide to hate Veterans, and do you kneel during the National Anthem as well?
The VA, in making the determination that a veteran requires a fiduciary to help them manage their money, is additionally making the decision that the veteran cannot handle a firearm, either. The VA is not conducting an evaluation to determine whether a veteran is a threat to himself or herself or others, requiring a medical determination verifying the veteran is displaying signs of violence, or notifying the veteran his or her Second Amendment rights are being eliminated. The VA simply reports the veteran to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) system and makes the “mentally defective” judgment of the veteran by default.
She has the novel idea that background checks should include criminal records!!
Great idea Jules, maybe they could like have some kind of form the could fill out before they buy a gun and answer those questions. Like questions 12 b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i for example. Check out form 4473 Julie, listed for your convenience below.
And they should require training. In Israel for example you need a doctor’s note proving no history of mental illness and drug abuse. You must also demonstrate you can use your gun at a firing range before you can take it home with a limited supply of bullets. I think she actually meant the whole cartridge though. Um, Julie from Israel Give the Good Guys Guns. Then she wisely explains to us that a correctly aimed bullet does what it is supposed to do. There doesn’t need to be thirty. Then she lectures us to think for a second, does an American need an assault weapon to protect themselves, target shoot or provide food for their family?
Gee Julie, I’m a little uncertain, what exactly is an “assault weapon”?
The she informs us we’re not applying for a driver’s license here. No kidding? Cars and Trucks as Weapons of Terror Um, Julie, perhaps you could clarify for me which of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights that you never studied in school involves transportation?
Then she rattles on that just like our police and military get the proper training to use the weapons, so should civilians. I think she is unaware that unless a state has Constitutional carry you do have to pass a test to get a concealed carry endorsement.
Then she sanctimoniously lectures us that owning a gun is a right, but it is our responsibility to carry one responsibly. Obviously from her New York ivory tower she is unaware that gun owners and concealed carry holders are some of the most responsible people out there.
She doesn’t seem to understand, it’s not the inanimate object that is of any threat, it is the hand that holds it.
It seems to me, our ill informed Julie is confusing you and I, law abiding gun owners with a bucket of chum who had been reported to the FIB, and the police had visited his home 39 times.
Julie, this is a law-enforcement failure because of a deal struck for money. Why don’t you investigate that? Why doesn’t that bother you?
But you did great on your cnn #FakeNews audition tonight, you’ll be great there, really.
Julie says she “wants to have a conversation about it on twitter”. @JulieBanderas
Woodburn penned a column “explaining” his bump-fire stock ban bill, which was riddled with enough errors to prompt me to write to him. It was the usual tripe you see from the gunpeople controlling victim disarmers: bump-fire stocks turn rifles into automatic weapons, Mandalaly Bay the deadliest shooting in history, the NFA banned machineguns…
159:27 Definition. As used in this subdivision, “multiburst trigger activator” means either of the following:
I. A device designed or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm, which allows the firearm to discharge 2 or more shots in a burst by activating the device.
II. A manual or power-driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm.
First off, you’ll note that nothing in that definition evens applies to bump-fire stocks, which simply use recoil to bring the rifle into battery and engage to trigger finger for each shot. Oopsie; that’s what happens when folks who know zip about guns try to.. well, I’m not sure now what he’s trying. Look at II.
when attached to a semiautomatic firearm it increases the rate of fire of that firearm.
I think that was supposed to address trigger cranks. But, as written, it doesn’t. Because it can’t increase the rate of fire of the firearm. I hate to give them ideas, but if they wanted to ban cranks, it should have read “activates the firearm’s trigger multiple times per manual cyclic operation of the device.” So if you’ve got three little teeth on your crank, turning it through one full cycle hits the trigger three times. Of course, you need only remove two teeth and crank faster. But then, I figure if you just want to waste ammunition, you can always pull the trigger real fast.*
Woodburn has submitted a bill to ban stuff that only bans stuff that doesn’t exist. Is he an idiot?
Or is he a closeted freedomista, an RKBA mole, merely diverting the real victim disarmers and wasting their time?
Judging by the other bills he’s submitted, I have to go with “idiot.” And reading further down in SB 492…
159:29 Exceptions. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to:
III. The sale to, possession of, or purchase of a multiburst trigger activator by any federal, state, or political subdivision of the state agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law for use in the discharge of its official duties.
IV. The possession of a multiburst trigger activator by any law enforcement officer of any federal, state, or political subdivision of the state or state agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, when the officer is on duty and the use is authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope of the officer’s duties.
Oh. My. Imagine, if you will: Police in a standoff with an alleged perp in a house. Tired of waiting, the officers break out the bump-fire stocks and trigger cranks and hose down the house.
And the neighborhood.
Passing traffic.
Likely each other.
Did Woodburn ask any cops if they want to use “multiburst trigger activators” on the job? Did any say, “Yes”? Do those still have LE certification?
* Disclosure: Around 25 years ago, I bought one of those “Hell-Fire” trigger adapters just to see what the fuss was. Took it to a range one day and tried it out. Not impressed. The guy with me tried it. Not impressed.
“That was stupid.” Took it off, and tossed in a box. Haven’t even seen it in at least 14 years; I figure it got lost in a move, and I haven’t missed it a bit.
I will admit to liking the gun show display of the trigger crank tripod with dual Ruger 10/22 actions. “You kids! Get offa my lawn!”
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
H.R _____ Journalist Protection Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for assault against journalists, and for other purposes.
But I guess I was wrong. So unless/until this passes, I’ve got this little list…
But seriously: This makes so-called “journalists” a special protected class, somehow more important than the little serfs being educatedinformed by their betters.
How special? Read § 120 (d)(2) for the oh-so-carefully crafted definition of “journalists.” Bloggers need not apply.
So DemDimocratic state Rep. Charles Young Jr. wanted to protest pro-RKBA legislation.
Miss. lawmaker displays pistol to protest gun legislation
He told House Speaker Philip Gunn that he and others are violating a joint legislative rule that says no one but sworn law enforcement officers can carry a gun in the Capitol or House and Senate chambers.
So anti-gun rules and laws… don’t work, Rep. Young?
Interestingly, it took some searching to find Foskett’s email address. AJC killed the link to the reporter staff directory. I guess they got tired of getting negative feedback from people who know they’re full of shit. Fortunately, they left the actual directory online; you should bookmark it.
Nice try, Foskett.
Yeah, you edited the article from this
to this
but you forgot to change the graphic.
I just had to send Foskett one more email.
Nice try.
But you forgot to change the graphic.
Fortunately, I kept screen shots of everything in case the ATF should ask.
I expect that graphic will disappear from the AJC site in 3… 2… 1…
UPDATE, 2/8/2018: They finally realized they still had the “assault rifle” image loading. It’s now gone. Further, they’ve set the original URL…
Mathematics is a logical discipline which some gunpeople controlling victim disarmers find difficult to master. To aid them in understanding, I’m providing a few simplified examples of how math works in the real world.
1.
Number of firearms homicides in 1993: 17,075
Number of firearms homicides in 2015: 12,979
12,979 is 4,096 lower than 17,075
2.
Rate of firearms homicides per 100K in 1993 6.56
Rate of firearms homicides per 100K in 2015: 4.13
4.13 is 2.43 lower than 6.56
3.
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 1999: 824
Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 2015: 489
489 is 335 lower than 824
4.
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 1999: 0.29
Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 2015: 0.15
.15 is .14 lower than .29
5.
Number of counties in US: 3,007
Number of counties responsible for recent jump in firearms-related deaths: 150 (5%)
150 is 2857 less than 3,007
6.
Estimated number of firearms in US in 1993: 150,000,000 to 211,000,000 (very vague estimate based on production/sales estimates)
Estimated number of firearms in US in 2015: 265-750,000,000 (basically, no one knows at all)
750,000,000 is 539,000,000 more than 211,000,000
7.
Estimated percentage of non-murderous firearms owners: 99.9978%
Estimated percentage of estimated number of murderous firearms owners: 0.0022%
99.9978 is 99.9956 more than .0022
Those suffering the disability of mathematical competence might think this demonstrates a reduction in homicides and accidental deaths at the same time that the numbers of firearms are increasing.
As I’ve said, math is hard for gunpeople controlling victim disarmers. As a result, they tend to rely upon Common Core “math” principles. To aid pro-human/civil rights advocates in understanding of their opposition, I’m also providing examples of how those people reach conclusions which seem to have little resemblance to reality.
1. Number of homicides in 1993 Number of homicides in 2015
Not needed.
State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.
2. Rate of homicides per 100K in 1993 Rate of homicides per 100K in 2015
Not needed.
State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.
3. Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 1999 Number of accidental firearms-related deaths in 2015
Not needed.
State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.
4. Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 1999 Rate of accidental firearms-related deaths per 100K in 2015
Not needed.
State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.
5. Number of counties in US Number of counties responsible for recent jump in firearms-related deaths
State unsupported claim. Show a minimum of three pages of emotive wishful thinking to illustrate your thought processes. When challenged, refer to contrarian claims as unsourced “alternative facts” because links weren’t given to US Code and other sources. When links are provided, state your disinterest in wasting time with documentation.
6. Estimated number of firearm in US in 1993 Estimated number of firearms in US in 2015
Not needed.
7. Estimated percentage of non-murderous firarms owners Estimated percentage of estimated number of murderous firearms owners
Not needed.
Shriek “We haven’t covered patriarchal percentages in college, therefore it has no meaning!”
+5 points for deletion
-10 points for doing real math; this was Common Core for TyrantsDummiesgunpeople controlling victim disarmers, damn it.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
Cultured, lots of things are. Yogurt, viruses, pearls, and other gems, and, people. When we were younger and growing up we wanted to be cultured because it meant we had manners, that we had education and knew how to handle ourselves in a variety of situations, depending of course on what the situation called for. Or, as my Aunt would jokingly say “Act like we had some druggin up”. I suspect most parents have hopes for how their children will turn out, they have certain standards that they teach us and hope we will adhere to, such as if we see an older person on a walker we would assist them in crossing the street as opposed to whacking them over the head and robbing them. That’s the culture I grew up in, you be kind helpful and nice if the situation calls for it. Serve proper sweet tea, appreciate fried okra, take care of your horse before you take care of yourself and don’t lie, stand up for those weaker or being picked on, and other than younger siblings (I am SURE this was in the handbook somewhere) don’t be doing the picking. These are parental and cultural expectations. Perhaps yours are similar, perhaps not. I’m guessing within most of the United States, the majority of these would be somewhat recognized.
Is this something to be appreciated and prized?
Those on the left, globalist, multiculturalists and the media, but I repeat myself, would disagree. From them we are told the joy and beauty of “multiculturalism”. How it enriches the county that is invaded enlightened. So, the government is currently shut down because the Demoncratic party is refusing to budge unless they are allowed to grant amnesty and citizenship to the DACA “children”. So let’s look at that a bit. First, the Demoncrats are perfectly willing to allow the armed forces to go without pay to bring more criminals into the United States. Ok, so they were children when the came, and while that tugs on everyone’s heartstrings let’s look at some reality. For me seeing some “dreamers” burning a United States flag or flipping it off does not inspire confidence in me that they love this country. So let’s look at the cost.
First, how many of these children, up to age 31, are we talking about? Well, that depends on which act we are talking about. Whether it’s obama’s illegal DACA or the piece of crap put out by Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham. Just How Large of an Amnesty Are We Talking About?
“According to the most reliable research, recent immigrants have sponsored an average of 3.45 additional relatives,” said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.
“I estimate that if 700,000 DACA beneficiaries receive lawful permanent residency status under an amnesty, then they can be expected to sponsor at least an additional 1.4 million relatives over time,” she told Congress this week.
Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she added, “In this scenario, the award of LPR status would result in a second, de facto amnesty for the parents of DACA beneficiaries — the very individuals who brought their children to settle here illegally, creating this policy dilemma. Ultimately, an amnesty for DACA beneficiaries likely would produce more than two million new LPRs over 20 years.”
Yep, the very parents that illegally came and brought the kids will likely get amnesty as well.
This just has the makings of a future “Falestinian refugee” crisis doesn’t it?
And if you enjoy myth busting on the same, here you go. Some very juicy ones in here. Myths & Facts
The numbers are striking. The DREAM Act of 2017, the most likely vehicle for extending DACA protections and making them permanent, would raise federal outlays by $115 billion dollars, according to a Breitbart News analysis. Nearly all of that would be paid for by additional deficit spending……
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a single person living in San Jose, California with an income of $32,000 would be eligible to receive a premium tax credit of $1,048 in 2017. The numbers vary by geography because health insurance costs vary widely by geography. A single person in Brooklyn with $32,000 of income would be eligible for an annual tax credit of around $2,666. But San Jose is likely more representative due to the high concentration of DACA aliens in California. Using the San Jose figure, current DACA aliens alone would likely be immediately eligible for around $838.4 million in Obamacare subsidies this year…….
The Dream Act of 2017, however, extends legal residency to far more aliens than the current DACA program. If we include 79 percent of the 1.8 million immediately eligible, the cost would rise to $91.5 billion over a decade. Including that share of the larger 3.3 million figure would push the 10 year cost of Obamacare subsidies to the DREAM households to around $167 billion.
You really should read the whole thing, but this gives you an idea of the monetary angle.
Then we have Truth on DACA: We’ve Already Granted Amnesty to These Illegals . Mr. Duke points out yes, they’ve been caught as criminals but no one is prosecuting them. They aren’t going to jail, nor are we forcing them or their parents to reimburse the country, county or city for the education or medical services or any other services from which they have benefited. He points out it is like coming home finding someone in your house chowing down on your dinner because his dad broke in and told him it was ok. You don’t call the cops, you feel bad for him, you just tell him to leave. Where upon your next door neighbor Rachel Madcow calls up the local #MSM #MediaBias TV station and rails you are a racist because you won’t continue feeding him and paying for his toothpaste. Ok, I paraphrased that last bit.
Contrary to this assertion, however, DACA recipients have considerably lower educational attainment than do American citizens. Almost a quarter are functionally illiterate, 73 percent live in low-income housing, and only four percent complete college, according to certain studies. Allowing DACA individuals — who range from high-school age to middle age — to stay, “is really the importation of an additional underclass,” as American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson puts it. (It’s also the importation of future Democrat voters.)
I wonder in how many languages classes have to be taught in California, and how does that affect the regular American students in the class?
If we can return to my example for a moment at the top about the dreamers who burn the flag and flip off things they don’t like, turns out, that isn’t so very bad a yardstick. While it is no doubt politically incorrect to point out that not all the dreamers/schemers are angels it is worth knowing the threshold they must cross to be considered a “criminal”. DACA: Granting Amnesty to Dreamers Committing Crimes While Abandoning Their Victims
Thus, the DACA guidelines give illegal aliens committing multiple felonies and significant misdemeanors a total pass as long as they have not been convicted of their criminal activity. This means that Dreamer gang-bangers, Dreamer identity thieves, Dreamer sexual predators, Dreamers who haven’t paid income taxes, and Dreamers committing a wide range of other crimes all qualify for DACA status as long as they haven’t been convicted of their crimes.
If current trends continue, the report states, by 2065, first- and second-generation immigrants will exceed 22 million persons, or more than 40 percent of Italy’s total population.
Some European countries, namely Italy, Germany, France and the UK, are facing the so-called “substitution of nations,” where the national ethnical majority is disappearing physically and biologically, and is being substituted by migrants, according to a recent report. Sputnik Italy discussed the issue with Daniele Scalea, the author of the report.
The number of indigenous citizens in Italy is declining at an astonishing rate. According to a Eurostat forecast, within the next 60 years, or sooner, 50% of Italy’s population will either be of African or Asian descent. This figure is due to the diminishing number of migrants from other European countries and a prolonged economic crisis in Italy. Italian and European authorities are attempting to execute a re-population program in order to solve this issue.
I hear it now. But Sheila, don’t be such a xenophobe, they will just become “Italians” “English” “French” “Swedish” “Canadian” “American” that came from __________. Really? Not necessarily. Remember I started by talking about wanting to live with honor, to be cultured? What got me started on this was a show I saw not long ago. Now I don’t watch a lot of television at all. But this one just floored me. This was on a series of deaths in Canada. The Shafia family lost three of their beautiful daughters and their nanny. The Shafias were from Afghanistan. You can read up on it, it really was quite horrific.
Right, the girls were killed by their parents and their brother. They had brought shame and disgrace to the family by dating and wanting to be Canadian. They wanted to integrate into the society in which they lived. And the nanny? She was the father’s first wife (not ex-wife, first wife, still wife) who couldn’t have children. So they treated her horribly but kept her around. And I guess she really was good with the children by second wife and murderer. So she was a bonus kill. Remorse?
“My conscience, my God, my religion, my creed aren’t shameful,”Shafia told the others, back inside the van. “Even if they hoist me up onto the gallows, nothing is more dear to me than my honour. Let’s leave our destiny to God and may God never make me, you or your mother honourless.”
“There is,” he said later, “no value of life without honour.”
Guess that is a “no”. Compare that with how Susan Smith behaved when she drowned her children. Her society did not support that and call it honor, she knew she had done something wrong. Now, the Shafias knew they had done something illegal, they just didn’t think it was wrong.
It’s honor of a whole perverted notion according to American, or pretty much Canadian standards. Although it probably fits right it with the idea of honor in France, the U.K. and Sweden now. Their “Acid Attacks” are due to “mental instability”, not religion, of course.
It’s THEIR culture. To them THAT was honorable. In the last few weeks on Twitter there have been a lot of pictures of women taking off their hijabs and waving them in defiance. Yep, while Linda Sarsour is over here convincing liberals it is “liberating” to wear them and the obliging liberals don them and smile at the camera in their enlightened embrace of “multiculturalism” women who have been forced to wear them since Jimmy Peanuts did his thing are taking them off and waving them.
A brave Iranian woman waves her hijab
And then they go missing. I don’t blame her for it though, I think she is amazing. I never did get an answer as to when Linda Sarsour was heading over there to support her oppressed sisters.
THIS is the traditional attire.
These hashtags have been running on Twitter. #ForcedHijab #Where_Is_She #IranProtests #Iranprotests #FreeAllProtesters
Some lady responded to some of these that the hijab protects them. It protects them from men behaving lasciviously towards them like western men do towards women. I actually answered her that not all western men act that way towards women and that it may be partly due to some western women being armed, willing and able to defend themselves from such. Of course I may be blocked from Twitter now.
And that is a big part of the draw of DACA for Demoncrats, new reliable Demoncratic votes. To heck with the American citizens that pay their salary, they will use the money and power granted to them by American citizens to betray them and favor the illegal immigrants.
“After years of over taxation, regulation, and mono party politics the State of California and many of its 58 Counties have become ungovernable,” the movement declares on its website.
Preston and Reed say the citizens of the state live “under a tyrannical form of government that does not follow” constitutional requirements.
Do you think the people coming from these countries are going to cherish our Second Amendment? Do you think they will see the value and the freedom it brings? They are coming from mostly corrupt or oppressive countries. I said mostly. But enough of them to tip the voting scales? Who know, add in vote fraud, and who knows. Do you think they will cherish our life and proper sweet tea? Who knows. It’s not working out so good in Italy, the UK , France or Sweden. No, they don’t all want to kill us, but if I show you a picture can you tell me the ones that don’t? Probably not. Even if none of them want to kill us, will it change the culture? How much? Can’t you just hear barry sotero saying “If you like your culture, you can keep your culture”?
So if we in America are going to look for a change in the culture, let it be something like this
May I just point out Hanukkah was only a little over a month ago, and that the point of Hanukkah was to prevent the eradication of Jewish culture by the Hellenist Demoncrats of their time? Culture really does matter.
But note: the clerk was on the phone as soon as she realized what was happening. And it took the police 10 minutes to arrive. 10 minutes can be a long time when you’re in danger and counting on someone else to save you. Fortunately, she had her act together and got everyone else out of danger.
Oh. And, uh, pro tip: shooting security locks open generally only works in movies.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
